So it may be simply that your perspective has changed:-)
Of course my perspective has changed! But it doesn't mean I've become blind. Cultures and mores change and ebb over the generations. Hesiod and Socrates were both correct. So are the people bitching about college kids today. They HAVE changed.
Children just getting kicked out of the nest into the real world rebel. The rebel against getting kicked out. Sometimes they rebel against nothing at all. It's been happening ever since children have been kicked out of the house(*). But the ways in which they rebel keep changing slowly over time. Sometimes they grow their hair long sometimes they cut it short. Sometimes go Bohemiam and sometimes they go Prussian. But above all they want to be different from their parent's generation.
They're doing this to be individuals, but at the same time they crave the conformity of their childhood. They haven't been *taught* to be individuals as childs, so they're basically learning it now using the "sink or swim" method. You end up with thousands of students on campus all looking identical yet claiming to be unique.
They're tearing down everything their parents' taught them and are rebuilding it from scratch. In the meantime they need the comfort of a comformist [note the similarity of words] group. One example. Their parents taught them that drinking to excess is wrong. So what do they do? Through that "old fogey" morality out the window and spend the first years of college in a drunken stupor until they've learned from experience that drinking to excess is wrong. The only times I've been so drunk I've passed out was in college. I suspect most adults would say the same. It's not that we've gotten boring as we've grown older, it's that we've gotten smarter.
Yes, smarter. If it's one thing we adults know, is that we were stupid when we were younger. I'm much smarter now in my forties than I was in my thirties. And I was smarter in my thirties than in my twenties. Actually, the only time I got dumber as I got older was when I got kicked out of the nest and went off to college! Maybe it will happen again when senility kicks in, but that won't be for several more decades.
(*) Which really isn't all that long, relatively speaking. Through most of history you stayed in the clan or family house and worked in the clan or family farm or business.
Body modifications do not indicate "out of the box thinking". Rather, they indicate conformity to a particular style. Getting your ears pierced when every woman since the turn of the last century got theirs pierced too, is not thinking out of the box. It's not any different getting your clit or glans pierced either. Neither is looking like you've just been in the middle of an explosion at a paperclip factory. My dad's buddy had a "Semper Fi" tattoo from WWII. Was he thinking out of the box? Or did he just get drunk in Guam one weekend?
Keeping the body you were born with is NOT "bschool clonishness".
We've got lots of consumer choices here, just not in the coffee or smoothie market. Those have been taken over by Starbucks and Jamba Juice. Oddly enough, they're also the primary hangouts of anti-capitalist leftists.
And many are probably poor as well. Being a shareholder isn't reserved for the wealthy. In fact, most shareholders are solidly middle class, as most shares in public corporations are in some sort of retirement or pension fund. So before you go ragging on wealthy shareholders (or advocating raising capital gains), remember that you're also talking about grandma down the street living on grandpa's pension.
At the ultimate root of things, capitalism is based on freedom, and socialism on slavery. Capitalism recognizes and encourages the economic system arising from the free interaction of free individuals. But capitalism isn't perfect (no one ever claimed it was). Socialism tries to correct the inequities of capitalism by taking freedom away from individuals to engage in free interactions.
Socialism does not recognize the ability of the individual to make his or her own economic choices, and so always needs a central authority to impose the system. In "theory" the socialist state would wither away and we would end up with one of several different varieties of anarcho-socialism. This has never happened, and there is no evidence that it ever could. Without the state there is nothing to stop free individuals from engaging in free economic transactions.
Of course, people still want socialism. Freedom is difficult. Freedom is not safe. Freedom offers no guarantees. People want strong centralized authorities to govern them instead. They would rather be serfs than freemen.
Get some real world experience with corporations. You don't have true collective behavior, because you do not have one mind in control of the company. Rather you have something more akin to emergent behavior. Corporations will do things like donate millions to cancer research, and then turn around lay off hundeds of employees that they could have kept on if they didn't donate millions to cancer research.
Why don't you buy a freaking television then, instead of dumping ever increasing demands on your computer while expect its overall complexity to remain low. A car has a fairly simple user interface. But make it a taxi and it has a few more knobs and switches to worry about. Make it a towtruck, backhow, hovercraft, and airplane, and it suddenly starts looking like your overly complex computer.
Funny thing too, since Starbucks is the preferred coffee provider of leftists and anti-capitalists everywhere (except in Berkeley, where the native Peet's is the preferred corporate coffee clone). Find someone railing against the McDonaldization of the world, and they probably have a Starbuck's cup in their hands.
The unfortunate truth is that neither fanatics nor capitalists care much about the concepts "human liberty" and "dignity".
This has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft. Both are publicly traded corporations. They are not human beings with the ability to be moral. To expect the end result of a collection of managers and paper shufflers to be concern for human liberty and dignity stretches the imagination. If Congress cannot do it, even though they're supposed to, how the heck can an artificial corporate entity ever possibly hope to?
A private corporation might be able to, only because it has one or two actual leaders at the top. But public corporations do not. They might have figureheads like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but the inertia created by several layers of management prevent them from doing much more than giving speeches and approving of the quarterly report. And even if they did try to step in and take hands-on control, they're still employees able to be fired by the board of directors. And the board of directors can get replaced. The entire company can get sold. Ultimately no one is accountable at a public corporation.
Do you really expect every moral employee at Microsoft to quit their jobs over this? To you really expect every Microsoft stockholder to dump their shares over this? Do you know how many millions of shareholders there actually are? Have YOU checked that your pension or retirement fund doesn't have any Microsoft stock in it? And if it does, are you willing to dump all of it today?
Yes, it had those words. But not until the second run. He re-edited the movie for foreign release a few months after the US release, and edited the US version at the same time.
I remember the "Episode IV" the *second* time I saw the movie, and thinking, "I don't remember that!"
Did the version you saw have a scene with Luke and Biggs talking on Tatooine? Biggs is leaving to join the rebellion and Luke wishes he could go with him? If you didn't, you didn't see the first run. That was one of Lucas's first post-release revisions. It might have been in the second run, but it wasn't in the later releases.
Here's the full quote. He's explaining why Vader has his mask and breaths funny:
It's about Ben and Luke's father and Vader when they are young Jedi knights. But Vader kills Luke's father, then Ben and Vader have a confrontation, just like they have in Star Wars, and Ben almost kills Vader. As a matter of fact, he falls into a volcanic pit and gets fried and is one destroyed being. That's why he has to wear the suit with a mask, because it's a breathing mask. It's like a walking iron lung. His face is all horrible inside. I was going to shoot a close-up of Vader where you could see the inside of his face, but then we said, no, no, it would destroy the mystique of the whole thing.
It shows that Lucas did have some character background (what I claimed earlier), but it also points out how different the 1977 Lucas is from the 2005 Lucas. He didn't have it all plotted out in detail from the beginning, heck, he didn't even have Vader as Luke's father in the beginning!
Why Lucas and his fanboys have to make excuses for changing his mind is beyond me. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, what is wrong is lying about it.
Here's another quote: "In the original script Ben Kenobi doesn't get killed in the fight with Vader." Holy crap! How can you claim you had all six (nine) episodes drafted out in the beginning, when you decide to kill of a major character in the middle episode at the last minute? This proves he isn't prescient, so let's stop worshipping him as a god, okay?
If Lucas had said this BEFORE episode V came out, then I would have believed him. But he said it after the fact. There is no proof because he said this after the fact. The only evidence we have is the integrity of George Lucas. But he has no integrity because his story changes everytime he opens his mouth! He can't even write the script for Episode III (something he claimed he had plotted out in detail thirty years ago) without huge gaping inconsistancies with "later" movies!
Sheesh. If he can't even keep the Jedi Code consistant from movie to movie, why should I trust him to keep parentage consistant?
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
The freedom to take away a freedom is not a freedom! It's instead a privilege. Freedoms are for everyone, privileges are for a few.
It's people like you trying to protect freedom by taking it away that are the primary reason we have so little freedom in this world. The only restrictions should be on the limits to freedom, not freedom itself. Do you know what a "free end" of a rope is? Do you think it could remain free once you've tied it down in a knot? Of course not! So why do you think men can be free when they are similarly tied up in knotty restrictions and regulations?
Don't get rid of the freedom, get rid of the exclusive privileges that destroy freedom!
Re:FreeBSD 5.4 64bit Support for Linux 32 Binaries
on
FreeBSD 5.4 Review
·
· Score: 1
Ditto. These instructions may sound difficult, but if you're going to run a wierdass configuration, such as running binaries built for one processor on a completely different processor, then read the damned instructions!
Is there a way we can turn off reviews coming from OSNews in our preferences? Please?
I'm getting sick and tired of reviews that in no way reflect the experiences I have with the very same product. This guy has weird bleeding edge hardware, and then tells us it's not ready for me with my mainstream hardware. FreeBSD WORKS on with my CPU. FreeBSD WORKS with my NIC. FreeBSD WORKS with my harddrives.
I don't expect operating systems to be perfect and support every piece of hardware ever built, but I do expect reviewers to base their evaluations on hardware that ordinary people out in the real world are using.
Btw, I just realized another gaping inconsistancy in Lucas' meticulously crafted plot line. In TPM Yoda says that six year old Anakin is too old to start Jedi training. Yet a couple of decades later Yoda trains a twenty year old Lucas^H^He. What's the deal?
Lucas is the master of revisionism. Never trust anything he says, especially if it's about his own work.
It isn't pronounced "Vah-der", it's pronounced "Vay-der". You would think Lucas would catch a blunder like that, instead of making the name sound like "dark invader" and then making him actaully be a dark invader the very first time you see him.
Hopefully Lessing isn't as ideologically strident as Lessig. The last paragraph of the excerpt made it seem as if the government were a weak and helpless pawn against the raw power and might of RCA. It ignores the fact that neither Armstrong's patent nor RCA's charter could exist without government fiat.
Did you REALLY believe Lucas when he told you he had six (or nine, he keeps changing his mind) episodes all plotted out before he ever started on the first movie? Here's a clue for you: he lied!
The first time Star Wars was shown in a theater, it did NOT say it was episode IV. It did NOT say "A New Hope." It was just plain "Star Wars". But by the time of the second theater run, Lucas had already started revising the story. The Luke/Biggs conversation on Tatooine was gone, never more to be seen. Sigh.
To be fair, it's certain that Lucas had some idea of the characters' backgrounds. Every writer does! He may even have sketched out a brief history. And he may have had some ideas for sequels if the first movie proved popular.
But to pretend that he had all six (nine) planned out in advance is absurd. Some of the earlier scripts are so different from what ended up in the first movie it's extremely probable he just pulled stuff out of his ass as he went along. When a little kid says "Look... Obi-Wan is pretending he doesn't know R2-D2", then we know the truth that the emperor has no clothes.
Nonsense. It's just a coincidence. Lucas doesn't speak Afrikaans.
Look at all the sith names. They're trival variations of something dark or sinister. Darth Maul (a heavy blunt weapon). Darth Sidius (insidious). Darth Tyranus (tryant).
Darth Vader is a trivial variation on "Dark Invader".
If you're like 95% of US citizens, blame yourself for voting this censors into office! I'm completely serious. We're in this situation because people keep voting for the lesser of two censors, whether it be in the White House, congress, state legislature, or local school board. Conservative or liberal or Republican or Democrat or Green, they all advocate censorship. Only the Libertarians don't.
The liberal side gave us political correctness and lobby to ban hate speech and tobacco advertisements. The conservatives gave us internet decency acts and lobby to ban pornography. One side wants to ban speech within a certain radius from certain medical clinics. Another side wants to put mandatory filters on public library computers.
Both sides gave us campaign finance reform and the DMCA. Both sides are trying to declare blogs to be non-press.
Slashdot Mirror
So it may be simply that your perspective has changed :-)
Of course my perspective has changed! But it doesn't mean I've become blind. Cultures and mores change and ebb over the generations. Hesiod and Socrates were both correct. So are the people bitching about college kids today. They HAVE changed.
Children just getting kicked out of the nest into the real world rebel. The rebel against getting kicked out. Sometimes they rebel against nothing at all. It's been happening ever since children have been kicked out of the house(*). But the ways in which they rebel keep changing slowly over time. Sometimes they grow their hair long sometimes they cut it short. Sometimes go Bohemiam and sometimes they go Prussian. But above all they want to be different from their parent's generation.
They're doing this to be individuals, but at the same time they crave the conformity of their childhood. They haven't been *taught* to be individuals as childs, so they're basically learning it now using the "sink or swim" method. You end up with thousands of students on campus all looking identical yet claiming to be unique.
They're tearing down everything their parents' taught them and are rebuilding it from scratch. In the meantime they need the comfort of a comformist [note the similarity of words] group. One example. Their parents taught them that drinking to excess is wrong. So what do they do? Through that "old fogey" morality out the window and spend the first years of college in a drunken stupor until they've learned from experience that drinking to excess is wrong. The only times I've been so drunk I've passed out was in college. I suspect most adults would say the same. It's not that we've gotten boring as we've grown older, it's that we've gotten smarter.
Yes, smarter. If it's one thing we adults know, is that we were stupid when we were younger. I'm much smarter now in my forties than I was in my thirties. And I was smarter in my thirties than in my twenties. Actually, the only time I got dumber as I got older was when I got kicked out of the nest and went off to college! Maybe it will happen again when senility kicks in, but that won't be for several more decades.
(*) Which really isn't all that long, relatively speaking. Through most of history you stayed in the clan or family house and worked in the clan or family farm or business.
Body modifications do not indicate "out of the box thinking". Rather, they indicate conformity to a particular style. Getting your ears pierced when every woman since the turn of the last century got theirs pierced too, is not thinking out of the box. It's not any different getting your clit or glans pierced either. Neither is looking like you've just been in the middle of an explosion at a paperclip factory. My dad's buddy had a "Semper Fi" tattoo from WWII. Was he thinking out of the box? Or did he just get drunk in Guam one weekend?
Keeping the body you were born with is NOT "bschool clonishness".
Here's to consumer choice!
We've got lots of consumer choices here, just not in the coffee or smoothie market. Those have been taken over by Starbucks and Jamba Juice. Oddly enough, they're also the primary hangouts of anti-capitalist leftists.
Of course, many are probably wealthy...
And many are probably poor as well. Being a shareholder isn't reserved for the wealthy. In fact, most shareholders are solidly middle class, as most shares in public corporations are in some sort of retirement or pension fund. So before you go ragging on wealthy shareholders (or advocating raising capital gains), remember that you're also talking about grandma down the street living on grandpa's pension.
At the ultimate root of things, capitalism is based on freedom, and socialism on slavery. Capitalism recognizes and encourages the economic system arising from the free interaction of free individuals. But capitalism isn't perfect (no one ever claimed it was). Socialism tries to correct the inequities of capitalism by taking freedom away from individuals to engage in free interactions.
Socialism does not recognize the ability of the individual to make his or her own economic choices, and so always needs a central authority to impose the system. In "theory" the socialist state would wither away and we would end up with one of several different varieties of anarcho-socialism. This has never happened, and there is no evidence that it ever could. Without the state there is nothing to stop free individuals from engaging in free economic transactions.
Of course, people still want socialism. Freedom is difficult. Freedom is not safe. Freedom offers no guarantees. People want strong centralized authorities to govern them instead. They would rather be serfs than freemen.
Get some real world experience with corporations. You don't have true collective behavior, because you do not have one mind in control of the company. Rather you have something more akin to emergent behavior. Corporations will do things like donate millions to cancer research, and then turn around lay off hundeds of employees that they could have kept on if they didn't donate millions to cancer research.
I'm sorry, but your workstation isn't mainstream hardware. Really, it's not.
Why don't you buy a freaking television then, instead of dumping ever increasing demands on your computer while expect its overall complexity to remain low. A car has a fairly simple user interface. But make it a taxi and it has a few more knobs and switches to worry about. Make it a towtruck, backhow, hovercraft, and airplane, and it suddenly starts looking like your overly complex computer.
Funny thing too, since Starbucks is the preferred coffee provider of leftists and anti-capitalists everywhere (except in Berkeley, where the native Peet's is the preferred corporate coffee clone). Find someone railing against the McDonaldization of the world, and they probably have a Starbuck's cup in their hands.
The unfortunate truth is that neither fanatics nor capitalists care much about the concepts "human liberty" and "dignity".
This has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft. Both are publicly traded corporations. They are not human beings with the ability to be moral. To expect the end result of a collection of managers and paper shufflers to be concern for human liberty and dignity stretches the imagination. If Congress cannot do it, even though they're supposed to, how the heck can an artificial corporate entity ever possibly hope to?
A private corporation might be able to, only because it has one or two actual leaders at the top. But public corporations do not. They might have figureheads like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but the inertia created by several layers of management prevent them from doing much more than giving speeches and approving of the quarterly report. And even if they did try to step in and take hands-on control, they're still employees able to be fired by the board of directors. And the board of directors can get replaced. The entire company can get sold. Ultimately no one is accountable at a public corporation.
Do you really expect every moral employee at Microsoft to quit their jobs over this? To you really expect every Microsoft stockholder to dump their shares over this? Do you know how many millions of shareholders there actually are? Have YOU checked that your pension or retirement fund doesn't have any Microsoft stock in it? And if it does, are you willing to dump all of it today?
Yes, the interview was interesting.
Yes, it had those words. But not until the second run. He re-edited the movie for foreign release a few months after the US release, and edited the US version at the same time.
I remember the "Episode IV" the *second* time I saw the movie, and thinking, "I don't remember that!"
Did the version you saw have a scene with Luke and Biggs talking on Tatooine? Biggs is leaving to join the rebellion and Luke wishes he could go with him? If you didn't, you didn't see the first run. That was one of Lucas's first post-release revisions. It might have been in the second run, but it wasn't in the later releases.
So why believe the 2005 Lucas instead of the 1977 Lucas? Was he lying in 1977 or 2005?
It shows that Lucas did have some character background (what I claimed earlier), but it also points out how different the 1977 Lucas is from the 2005 Lucas. He didn't have it all plotted out in detail from the beginning, heck, he didn't even have Vader as Luke's father in the beginning!
Why Lucas and his fanboys have to make excuses for changing his mind is beyond me. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, what is wrong is lying about it.
Here's another quote: "In the original script Ben Kenobi doesn't get killed in the fight with Vader." Holy crap! How can you claim you had all six (nine) episodes drafted out in the beginning, when you decide to kill of a major character in the middle episode at the last minute? This proves he isn't prescient, so let's stop worshipping him as a god, okay?
If Lucas had said this BEFORE episode V came out, then I would have believed him. But he said it after the fact. There is no proof because he said this after the fact. The only evidence we have is the integrity of George Lucas. But he has no integrity because his story changes everytime he opens his mouth! He can't even write the script for Episode III (something he claimed he had plotted out in detail thirty years ago) without huge gaping inconsistancies with "later" movies!
Sheesh. If he can't even keep the Jedi Code consistant from movie to movie, why should I trust him to keep parentage consistant?
The freedom to take away a freedom is not a freedom! It's instead a privilege. Freedoms are for everyone, privileges are for a few.
It's people like you trying to protect freedom by taking it away that are the primary reason we have so little freedom in this world. The only restrictions should be on the limits to freedom, not freedom itself. Do you know what a "free end" of a rope is? Do you think it could remain free once you've tied it down in a knot? Of course not! So why do you think men can be free when they are similarly tied up in knotty restrictions and regulations?
Don't get rid of the freedom, get rid of the exclusive privileges that destroy freedom!
Ditto. These instructions may sound difficult, but if you're going to run a wierdass configuration, such as running binaries built for one processor on a completely different processor, then read the damned instructions!
Is there a way we can turn off reviews coming from OSNews in our preferences? Please?
I'm getting sick and tired of reviews that in no way reflect the experiences I have with the very same product. This guy has weird bleeding edge hardware, and then tells us it's not ready for me with my mainstream hardware. FreeBSD WORKS on with my CPU. FreeBSD WORKS with my NIC. FreeBSD WORKS with my harddrives.
I don't expect operating systems to be perfect and support every piece of hardware ever built, but I do expect reviewers to base their evaluations on hardware that ordinary people out in the real world are using.
...unseen until the 9th movie.
:-)
Hah!
Btw, I just realized another gaping inconsistancy in Lucas' meticulously crafted plot line. In TPM Yoda says that six year old Anakin is too old to start Jedi training. Yet a couple of decades later Yoda trains a twenty year old Lucas^H^He. What's the deal?
Lucas is the master of revisionism. Never trust anything he says, especially if it's about his own work.
It isn't pronounced "Vah-der", it's pronounced "Vay-der". You would think Lucas would catch a blunder like that, instead of making the name sound like "dark invader" and then making him actaully be a dark invader the very first time you see him.
Hopefully Lessing isn't as ideologically strident as Lessig. The last paragraph of the excerpt made it seem as if the government were a weak and helpless pawn against the raw power and might of RCA. It ignores the fact that neither Armstrong's patent nor RCA's charter could exist without government fiat.
Did you REALLY believe Lucas when he told you he had six (or nine, he keeps changing his mind) episodes all plotted out before he ever started on the first movie? Here's a clue for you: he lied!
The first time Star Wars was shown in a theater, it did NOT say it was episode IV. It did NOT say "A New Hope." It was just plain "Star Wars". But by the time of the second theater run, Lucas had already started revising the story. The Luke/Biggs conversation on Tatooine was gone, never more to be seen. Sigh.
To be fair, it's certain that Lucas had some idea of the characters' backgrounds. Every writer does! He may even have sketched out a brief history. And he may have had some ideas for sequels if the first movie proved popular.
But to pretend that he had all six (nine) planned out in advance is absurd. Some of the earlier scripts are so different from what ended up in the first movie it's extremely probable he just pulled stuff out of his ass as he went along. When a little kid says "Look... Obi-Wan is pretending he doesn't know R2-D2", then we know the truth that the emperor has no clothes.
Nonsense. It's just a coincidence. Lucas doesn't speak Afrikaans.
Look at all the sith names. They're trival variations of something dark or sinister. Darth Maul (a heavy blunt weapon). Darth Sidius (insidious). Darth Tyranus (tryant).
Darth Vader is a trivial variation on "Dark Invader".
If you're like 95% of US citizens, blame yourself for voting this censors into office! I'm completely serious. We're in this situation because people keep voting for the lesser of two censors, whether it be in the White House, congress, state legislature, or local school board. Conservative or liberal or Republican or Democrat or Green, they all advocate censorship. Only the Libertarians don't.
The liberal side gave us political correctness and lobby to ban hate speech and tobacco advertisements. The conservatives gave us internet decency acts and lobby to ban pornography. One side wants to ban speech within a certain radius from certain medical clinics. Another side wants to put mandatory filters on public library computers.
Both sides gave us campaign finance reform and the DMCA. Both sides are trying to declare blogs to be non-press.
That Liberal Media!