it just has to be said:
"all your base are belong to us"
interesting: the coalition didn't include the UK?
on
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
free speech also requires that its audience is critical of what it is being told, otherwise, it is just propaganda, regardless of the message.
so, i won't rave about 9/11 without asking a few questions. and even then, i probably won't rave about it.
moore put together an interesting piece, but i really didn't need this movie to figure out bush was an idiot.
what i do ask is that we don't call this a documentary, since there is no room left for objectivity once moore was done riding around capitol hill in an ice-cream truck.
there is probably much truth within this movie, but the message is so heavily slanted, it's tough to get beyond the guy with the megaphone./. readers have already critiqued this thread to death, but i will raise this one question:
moore was so quick to make fun of the "coalition", which, in fairness, wasn't much of a coalition at all... however there was still one huge omission.. he never mentioned the UK, or blair's solidarity behind the US and its president.
moore has an agenda, just like bush, it just happens to be going in a different direction. take in his message, but don't make it gospel.
uh... why do i have the feeling that between battlefield robots:
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/28/22552 57&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=137&tid=99)
and over-sized blimps, the U.S. military just isn't going to have the same ethos in the near future?
i just don't think balloons and soldiers on segways are the best way to discourage al queda. or maybe it's just me:-)
-- i'm not paranoid. who told you that???
yeah, nothing like defining a "standard" between 30 companies, especially when those companies include M$, Intel and Adobe. I wonder whose interests this will serve???
This is like the definition of "free speech" in america (you can say whatever you want, as long as the majority doesn't get offended)
but, instead, it will be "you can build whatever support you want into this 'standard', as long as we (M$, Intel, Adobe, et al. stand to make crap loads of profit from it because it will force people to use our closed, and proprietary software).
How does the end user benefit from a 3D "standard" like this?.. answer = they don't. The only "standard" that will emerge is the requirement to use the software or hardware that supports the format (which, by the way, will not be "universal" by any stretch of the imagination)
By the way.. there's already a universal 3D exchange format developed by Kaydara (www.kaydara.com)... the format is called FBX and supports 3D objects, lights, textures, animation and camera information...
what's that? M$ doesn't create 3D software that can actually utilize this information? fancy that.. sounds like we need to be creating a new standard then.../sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
it just has to be said: "all your base are belong to us"
free speech also requires that its audience is critical of what it is being told, otherwise, it is just propaganda, regardless of the message. so, i won't rave about 9/11 without asking a few questions. and even then, i probably won't rave about it. moore put together an interesting piece, but i really didn't need this movie to figure out bush was an idiot. what i do ask is that we don't call this a documentary, since there is no room left for objectivity once moore was done riding around capitol hill in an ice-cream truck. there is probably much truth within this movie, but the message is so heavily slanted, it's tough to get beyond the guy with the megaphone. /. readers have already critiqued this thread to death, but i will raise this one question:
moore was so quick to make fun of the "coalition", which, in fairness, wasn't much of a coalition at all ... however there was still one huge omission .. he never mentioned the UK, or blair's solidarity behind the US and its president.
moore has an agenda, just like bush, it just happens to be going in a different direction. take in his message, but don't make it gospel.
shouldn't they have named this ship the Invisby?
uh ... why do i have the feeling that between battlefield robots:
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/28/22552 57&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=137&tid=99)
and over-sized blimps, the U.S. military just isn't going to have the same ethos in the near future?
i just don't think balloons and soldiers on segways are the best way to discourage al queda. or maybe it's just me :-)
-- i'm not paranoid. who told you that???
yeah, nothing like defining a "standard" between 30 companies, especially when those companies include M$, Intel and Adobe. I wonder whose interests this will serve???
.. answer = they don't. The only "standard" that will emerge is the requirement to use the software or hardware that supports the format (which, by the way, will not be "universal" by any stretch of the imagination)
.. there's already a universal 3D exchange format developed by Kaydara (www.kaydara.com) ... the format is called FBX and supports 3D objects, lights, textures, animation and camera information ...
.. sounds like we need to be creating a new standard then ... /sarcasm
This is like the definition of "free speech" in america (you can say whatever you want, as long as the majority doesn't get offended)
but, instead, it will be "you can build whatever support you want into this 'standard', as long as we (M$, Intel, Adobe, et al. stand to make crap loads of profit from it because it will force people to use our closed, and proprietary software).
How does the end user benefit from a 3D "standard" like this?
By the way
what's that? M$ doesn't create 3D software that can actually utilize this information? fancy that