Even 2001: Space Odyssey got the "no sound in space" part in 1968.
You can't have "lasers - pew pew" without the 'pew-pew'.:D
In general, I agree with you. But can you imagine watching a long Star Wars space battle with no sound except the quiet hiss of the cabin cooling? Yep - it could certainly be very atmospheric, but it would be quite a different atmosphere than what was achieved in Star Wars.
Yes - but he's doing a bad job of debunking it. Sound in space and wings on interstellar craft, fine - explore these aspects. But TFA just savages things without actually thinking about them at all. For example, he has a big go at the Death Star having this glaring exhaust port weakness. Well maybe it's not so easy to design a weapon that generates enough energy to blow up planets that doesn't have a big exhaust port. Not to mention that it's the size of a small moon yet can travel interstellar distances. I can see all the storm troopers dying of heat exhaustion the first time it's fired or starts moving. "No," says the engineer with his last, parched breaths, "I couldn't put an exhaust port in it as that would have been a weakness."
The earlier poster covered a lot of the other points. If someone wants to point out logical failings in movies then fine (it's quite often me), but they should at least have the imagination to do so.
Hey, somebody discovered the slippery slope fallacy!
Hey, somebody discovered the Slippery Slope Fallacy Fallacy. That is to say, the "slippery slope fallacy" states that just because we have stepped closer to the cliff edge, doesn't mean we'll take further steps. The "slippery slope fallacy fallacy" states that just because we haven't proven the additional steps will be taken, doesn't mean we haven't just reduced the number of steps needing to be taken to reach the cliff edge.
Presumably there's a counter issue about future development though. The patent can be an advantage to MS in a way. If MS do settle with i4i then they will henceforth be able to implement a feature that OpenOffice (or anyone else) wont be able to. So, yes - it pains MS that they would have to pay to do something, but if they can pay and others can't then the patent has the usual effect of software patents, of closing the market with further barriers to entry and favouring established and large players.
I hope not. Microsoft need to actually win this and get that patent invalidated. Or else who will i4i shake down next? OpenOffice? Notepad++? It's a bad patent.
Then again, the best way to not get caught is to not commit the crimes.
That's hardly a guarantee. I can cite you numerous instances of people who didn't commit the crimes but got caught (and sentenced) anyway. No, the real way to not get caught, is to write the laws.
The vast majority of Christians "pick and choose" to some extent and believe that they are supposed to. And there is support for that in Jesus stating in the New Testament that he here to overturn the old laws. Of course, these people don't meet your definition of Christian. You appear to wish to argue against a construct that doesn't match the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian. At which point you're just doing a No True Scotsman argument in reverse, i.e. any Christian that your objection to religion doesn't fit (e.g. they go about killing homosexuals), is "no true Christian." Your argument is unfalsifiable and disconnected from the real world.
What the fuck is that shit? Saying that if you believe in evolution you are for eugenics, abortion and infanticide? Talk about demonizing people to defend your position. What scum write something like that?
I agree and its refreshing to hear some realism on Slashdot. There are some instances of what you describe, but they're quite specialised. For example, there is Stratfor which has a very specific range of news / analysis. It's expensive unfortunately, but it targets businesses and people with financial interests and thus, though lacking in moral perspective, it tends to be accurate and in depth. Fox News, the Daily Mail (UK newspaper) might be targeting the public and therefore can get away with touting their shareholder's bias, but someone selling news to the financial system has to keep fairly accurate or they wont stay in business. (Not saying things like Stratfor don't have a bias, but its an entirely different sort to the mass media).
I would be quite willing to pay a reasonable subscription for a decent news service. As traditional newspaper sales begin failing to support news reporting, I think this will be a requirement.
There's also The Independent. It has a nice level of coverage with about the right depth and breadth for me. For that reason, I prefer it to the Guardian which also has a bit more of an axe to grind sometimes. But the Independent has gone downhill quite a bit over the last two years, showing an increasing agenda and bias. The commemorative Obama poster was pretty much the last straw for me, causing me to change from buying it every weekday to only when it has some interesting stories or columns (about 4 times a month).
That sounds familiar. I've been in cases where I've volunteered perhaps nearly a hundred hours over a period of time, and then people turn round, criticize and demand more. It seems for some people, that if you do nothing at all, then nothing is expected, but if you do something, then everything is expected. You see it again and again, especially with public figures who get torn down for not doing enough by people who've done nothing. Some folks are just selfish, I reckon. Now I don't know enough about this issue to say who is right and who is wrong in what they were actually arguing about. But reading those emails, Cox certainly maintains a reasonable tone and I know that he has contributed a great deal over the years. So I think the earlier post has the right of it. All we can do is express many thanks for all his freely given time over the years and wish luck to the new maintainer. If Alan Cox is reading this (and who wouldn't read a Slashdot story about themselves), then good luck mate. Don't get choked up by this. You've done a lot, it's known you've done a lot, and your freed up energy will undoubtedly end up channelled into something else worthwhile whether professional or personal. So sit back, take a breather, and wait for perspective to re-settle.
Incidentally, I got four or five replies to that, not just one. Each reply was different, most had something important to say, and led to more conversation, including this conversation. What exactly is wrong with that? We're here to waste time, not to be efficient purveyors of definitions, after all.
Very well - you win this round, m.ducharme, with your fair points and your reasonable argument. But we will meet again, mark my words!
Yep - I still use Firefox on Linux sometimes (mainly because the Kubuntu package of Konqueror is lagging behind the times and has bugs in it), but on Windows, I'm starting to use IE8 for the same reasons as you give.
Having just scrolled down fully half the length of this Slashdot story, easily several hundred comments, yours is the first comment to actually mention SVG! I just wanted to say thank you!:D
Call me crazy, but I'd rather see Opera compete with Microsoft by writing better software.
Opera already write very good software (ime). Anti-trust actions are about enabling people to make their choice based on the best product, rather than it being a factor of leverage in other markets. Which is exactly what you say you want.
H.
So basically, your question was just an excuse to answer yourself, ideally "correcting" someone else's reply while you did so. You realise you could have just posted your definition first and saved someone their time in typing an answer you would reject?
Step 1) Download Firefox using FTP: instructions.
Step 2) Use Firefox to download Opera.
(you can probably use the method above to directly download Opera, but I'm too lazy to figure out how right now)
You know, it was a lot easier for me to download and install Opera when I could use IE to do it.
Wow there's a lot of MS supporters on this article marking everything anti MS a troll.
I think there's mainly a prevailing view that two wrongs don't make a right and that Microsoft's worst behaviour (e.g. messing up Javascript standards, etc.) is in the past (for now, at least). IE8 appears to be a pretty good browser and to handle web-standards quite well. And there are problems with not including a default browser with the OS that make the "cure" a problem in itself. Not to mention the double standard of other Operating Systems coming with default browsers of their choice (Macs, Ubuntu both do). I guess also that people no longer feel Microsoft is the unshakeable monopoly that it was. Macs keep sneaking in for a start, so people are more sympathetic to what seems mere witch-hunting.
I don't think it's a case of being pro or anti- Microsoft. I think it's just a general feeling of an old battle not justifying present wrongs.
There is such a thing as orgasm during non-consensual sex. It can be very traumatic and confusing for the victim causing them to question themselves. It has been particularly damaging for children who were abused to have had their first orgasms the result of forced sex. Your implying that sexual stimulation indicates volition is very incorrect. Might as well say that the release of endorphins following physical pain indicates that the injured chose to be hurt.
The study you linked to about increased chance of pregnancy under rape is innaccurately characterised by yourself as saying "twice as likely". The article you linked to [b]doesn't[/b] say that rape increases the chance of conception (by any amount). It discusses the controversy over some research on the subject. Research, incidentally, that has many factors uncovered. It compares conception rates from casual, consensual sex with rape and it is very far from conclusive. For example, it makes the assumption that a woman is more likely to engage in casual sex when she is most likely to conceive. What is the basis for this assumption? It could just as likely be possible that women are less likely to do so - after all, human beings are one of the few species that uses sex as a means for a female to attract a male even when the female is not fertile. What makes more sense than to see if someone is a good partner first, with less risk.
And yes, though highly unusual and doubtless under-reported, there are cases of female sexual abuse of males (no, not for payment).
Finally, regarding the beating up of AT&T employees, should you not be going after the senior execs rather than the phone monkeys? Or do you just go for easy targets?
Slashdot Mirror
You can't have "lasers - pew pew" without the 'pew-pew'. :D
In general, I agree with you. But can you imagine watching a long Star Wars space battle with no sound except the quiet hiss of the cabin cooling? Yep - it could certainly be very atmospheric, but it would be quite a different atmosphere than what was achieved in Star Wars.
Yes - but he's doing a bad job of debunking it. Sound in space and wings on interstellar craft, fine - explore these aspects. But TFA just savages things without actually thinking about them at all. For example, he has a big go at the Death Star having this glaring exhaust port weakness. Well maybe it's not so easy to design a weapon that generates enough energy to blow up planets that doesn't have a big exhaust port. Not to mention that it's the size of a small moon yet can travel interstellar distances. I can see all the storm troopers dying of heat exhaustion the first time it's fired or starts moving. "No," says the engineer with his last, parched breaths, "I couldn't put an exhaust port in it as that would have been a weakness."
The earlier poster covered a lot of the other points. If someone wants to point out logical failings in movies then fine (it's quite often me), but they should at least have the imagination to do so.
Authority doesn't like to feel unneeded. If you handle things yourself they get upset. Same is true of education.
I was more imagining a letter from a lawyer in East Texas saying you can't sell your work anymore, actually.
That was pretty much my first thought when I saw the headline, too. I could never, ever manage to use something like this, but I totally want it!
I don't know what I'd do with it. Probably just put a pillow on it and sleep on it just to be close to that much technology.
Hey, somebody discovered the Slippery Slope Fallacy Fallacy. That is to say, the "slippery slope fallacy" states that just because we have stepped closer to the cliff edge, doesn't mean we'll take further steps. The "slippery slope fallacy fallacy" states that just because we haven't proven the additional steps will be taken, doesn't mean we haven't just reduced the number of steps needing to be taken to reach the cliff edge.
Presumably there's a counter issue about future development though. The patent can be an advantage to MS in a way. If MS do settle with i4i then they will henceforth be able to implement a feature that OpenOffice (or anyone else) wont be able to. So, yes - it pains MS that they would have to pay to do something, but if they can pay and others can't then the patent has the usual effect of software patents, of closing the market with further barriers to entry and favouring established and large players.
Yeah - don't flush it while you're still sitting down. Well, unless you like that sort of thing.
I hope not. Microsoft need to actually win this and get that patent invalidated. Or else who will i4i shake down next? OpenOffice? Notepad++? It's a bad patent.
That's hardly a guarantee. I can cite you numerous instances of people who didn't commit the crimes but got caught (and sentenced) anyway. No, the real way to not get caught, is to write the laws.
Who cares about them finding out? I want to know when we can get it over here!
That would be from the same news (um entertainment) channels that benefit from this technology, then?
The vast majority of Christians "pick and choose" to some extent and believe that they are supposed to. And there is support for that in Jesus stating in the New Testament that he here to overturn the old laws. Of course, these people don't meet your definition of Christian. You appear to wish to argue against a construct that doesn't match the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian. At which point you're just doing a No True Scotsman argument in reverse, i.e. any Christian that your objection to religion doesn't fit (e.g. they go about killing homosexuals), is "no true Christian." Your argument is unfalsifiable and disconnected from the real world.
What the fuck is that shit? Saying that if you believe in evolution you are for eugenics, abortion and infanticide? Talk about demonizing people to defend your position. What scum write something like that?
I agree and its refreshing to hear some realism on Slashdot. There are some instances of what you describe, but they're quite specialised. For example, there is Stratfor which has a very specific range of news / analysis. It's expensive unfortunately, but it targets businesses and people with financial interests and thus, though lacking in moral perspective, it tends to be accurate and in depth. Fox News, the Daily Mail (UK newspaper) might be targeting the public and therefore can get away with touting their shareholder's bias, but someone selling news to the financial system has to keep fairly accurate or they wont stay in business. (Not saying things like Stratfor don't have a bias, but its an entirely different sort to the mass media).
I would be quite willing to pay a reasonable subscription for a decent news service. As traditional newspaper sales begin failing to support news reporting, I think this will be a requirement.
There's also The Independent. It has a nice level of coverage with about the right depth and breadth for me. For that reason, I prefer it to the Guardian which also has a bit more of an axe to grind sometimes. But the Independent has gone downhill quite a bit over the last two years, showing an increasing agenda and bias. The commemorative Obama poster was pretty much the last straw for me, causing me to change from buying it every weekday to only when it has some interesting stories or columns (about 4 times a month).
That sounds familiar. I've been in cases where I've volunteered perhaps nearly a hundred hours over a period of time, and then people turn round, criticize and demand more. It seems for some people, that if you do nothing at all, then nothing is expected, but if you do something, then everything is expected. You see it again and again, especially with public figures who get torn down for not doing enough by people who've done nothing. Some folks are just selfish, I reckon. Now I don't know enough about this issue to say who is right and who is wrong in what they were actually arguing about. But reading those emails, Cox certainly maintains a reasonable tone and I know that he has contributed a great deal over the years. So I think the earlier post has the right of it. All we can do is express many thanks for all his freely given time over the years and wish luck to the new maintainer. If Alan Cox is reading this (and who wouldn't read a Slashdot story about themselves), then good luck mate. Don't get choked up by this. You've done a lot, it's known you've done a lot, and your freed up energy will undoubtedly end up channelled into something else worthwhile whether professional or personal. So sit back, take a breather, and wait for perspective to re-settle.
Cheers,
H.
Very well - you win this round, m.ducharme, with your fair points and your reasonable argument. But we will meet again, mark my words!
H.
Yep - I still use Firefox on Linux sometimes (mainly because the Kubuntu package of Konqueror is lagging behind the times and has bugs in it), but on Windows, I'm starting to use IE8 for the same reasons as you give.
Having just scrolled down fully half the length of this Slashdot story, easily several hundred comments, yours is the first comment to actually mention SVG! I just wanted to say thank you!
Opera already write very good software (ime). Anti-trust actions are about enabling people to make their choice based on the best product, rather than it being a factor of leverage in other markets. Which is exactly what you say you want.
H.
So basically, your question was just an excuse to answer yourself, ideally "correcting" someone else's reply while you did so. You realise you could have just posted your definition first and saved someone their time in typing an answer you would reject?
You know, it was a lot easier for me to download and install Opera when I could use IE to do it.
I think there's mainly a prevailing view that two wrongs don't make a right and that Microsoft's worst behaviour (e.g. messing up Javascript standards, etc.) is in the past (for now, at least). IE8 appears to be a pretty good browser and to handle web-standards quite well. And there are problems with not including a default browser with the OS that make the "cure" a problem in itself. Not to mention the double standard of other Operating Systems coming with default browsers of their choice (Macs, Ubuntu both do). I guess also that people no longer feel Microsoft is the unshakeable monopoly that it was. Macs keep sneaking in for a start, so people are more sympathetic to what seems mere witch-hunting.
I don't think it's a case of being pro or anti- Microsoft. I think it's just a general feeling of an old battle not justifying present wrongs.
There is such a thing as orgasm during non-consensual sex. It can be very traumatic and confusing for the victim causing them to question themselves. It has been particularly damaging for children who were abused to have had their first orgasms the result of forced sex. Your implying that sexual stimulation indicates volition is very incorrect. Might as well say that the release of endorphins following physical pain indicates that the injured chose to be hurt.
The study you linked to about increased chance of pregnancy under rape is innaccurately characterised by yourself as saying "twice as likely". The article you linked to [b]doesn't[/b] say that rape increases the chance of conception (by any amount). It discusses the controversy over some research on the subject. Research, incidentally, that has many factors uncovered. It compares conception rates from casual, consensual sex with rape and it is very far from conclusive. For example, it makes the assumption that a woman is more likely to engage in casual sex when she is most likely to conceive. What is the basis for this assumption? It could just as likely be possible that women are less likely to do so - after all, human beings are one of the few species that uses sex as a means for a female to attract a male even when the female is not fertile. What makes more sense than to see if someone is a good partner first, with less risk.
And yes, though highly unusual and doubtless under-reported, there are cases of female sexual abuse of males (no, not for payment).
Finally, regarding the beating up of AT&T employees, should you not be going after the senior execs rather than the phone monkeys? Or do you just go for easy targets?