And that is one way in which Unix is superior. In Unix you *can*, with linking (hard or soft), put a directory inside itself if you had some reason to.
No, you see, the stupid part isn't the refusal to continue. The stupid part is the request to press F1. Think about it. Press F1 on *what*? (Keep in mind that often when this message appeared, it was too late to plug in the keyboard at that point - it woudln't be recognized without a reboot.)
I wonder what they changed it to. "Illegal Operation" is in fact the real technical term for what happened (a machine language instruction code that doesn't map to any real instruction on the CPU was attempted) This happens when the CPU tries executing a sequence of bytes that don't contain proper machine language code. That almost always happens because of a bad pointer error on the part of the programmer, where he ended up overwriting part of the program's own code in memory at some point.
It's a term that doesn't come up often in Unix, because Unix puts the program code into totally different memory pages from the stack and the heap, where it is flagged as read-only. Attempts to write to it are segfaults just like writing to some other programs' memory would be. (Which gives great detection of wild pointers, but prevents the technique of self-modifying code, which annoyed some early assembly programmers.)
SUBjectively there is a difference. OBjectively there isn't. The difference is contained entirely in the connotation, which isn't part of the official meaning of the word.
I'm trying to explain that its BOTH! - depending on which of the multiple definitions of "book" was being used. Chiding me for not calling it the sixth book makes as much sense as chiding me for calling part of my computer a "bus", saying "but it has no wheels and can't take any passengers - so clearly it's not a bus". It's about CONTEXT. English is an imprecise language.
I'm well aware of that. That was my point. It was stupid to call me wrong for saying it was the third "book", when "sixth book" is just as wrong, as is "first book" - it's one of those words in English that has different meanings depending on context.
It's not their job to handle a Slashdotting, and it's inappropriate to call them idiots when Slashdot is the one causing the problem.
That is self-contradictory. Either it's not their job to handle a slashdotting (which is where I stand, which is why I'm saying they shouldn't have taken the link down), or "Slashdot is the one causing the problem". Make up your mind - which is it?
It's not Slashdot's fault that someone's site doesn't handle a spike in traffic. When you put up a site it's for the express purpose of letting interested people visit it. All slashdot does is publicise it.
Then what the heck is this "depth" you see in him? I can sum up the character in five lines:
I'm a really old and powerful part of the world, more powerful than anyone else alive.
Oh, darn, wait, that would make me able to fix the problem with the ring myself - we have to change that or we don't have an excuse for a story - uhh - okay I'm tied to this part of the world and can't leave so someone else has to do it. Phew.
My wife is really hot, in a magical otherworldly way.
I'm kinda flighty and "not all there" for some reason.
Here, have your ring back and finish the adventure.
His introduction to the story didn't really add anything at all interesting to the tale.
I liked the film but the trivialising of Frodo grated - the stabbing on Amon Súl as mentioned but also his defiance of the Nazgúl at the ford was an important 'growth point' - he was very badly injured but still managed to resist. Giving this to Arwen downplays Frodo too much.
I was wondering if this was either 1) to make a less heroic character that the public might relate to more easily and/or 2) to make his transformation more striking - though I suspect it's the former.
But the transformation is completely in the
opposite direction from the book then. In the
book he's a bit too foolhardy and overt in the
beginning and has to learn later how sometimes cowardice is the prudent choice. In the movie it looks like they'll end up going the opposite direction.
It *IS* always correct usage to use the word "book" to refer to the physical thing made of pages between one set of covers, even when the author chose to split up the story into further "books" inside that thing. "Book" is one of those words in English with multiple definitions. I am under no requirement to use the word in the same context Tolkien was.
Brush up on your reading comprehension. I wasn't complaining about the caching. I was complaining about deleting the link. The slashdot effect is very temporary, so don't permanently break the link to fix a problem that won't be there in an hour or two.
It wasn't that they thought the public wouldn't go for a long book. It was that they though the public wouldn't go for a book published ONLY in hardcover without a paperback version - it would hurt sales to only be able to obtain the book in it's most expensive form. This is relevant because a book of that length was almost impossible to get bound in paperback without having it fall to pieces. To make a paperback version, it had to be split into smaller parts, and THAT is why it is now three parts.
So, in the end the decision to split it was a technical one to accomodate paperback binding technology. It had nothing to do with how long a story the public would tolerate.
Peter Jackson has stated numerous times he doesn't want this to be called the director's cut. It's the "extended verion". He's adamant about that because HE is the one that decided what to cut to trim the movie to three hours, so the one released in theaters is ALSO a director's cut. (This is to distinguish from the common practice when the director hands a finished product to the company, who makes FURTHER edits not under the Director's control, hence the difference between the Director's Cut and the one you saw in the theatres. In this case both the shorter theatrical release and the longer new DVD are Director's cuts.)
Tom's depth of character never surface in LOTR. The histories published later, which were NOT meant to be necessary reading to understand the story are the only place he gets fleshed out. Take that away and look at JUST the story as it was meant to be told and he seems very shallow and silly and out of place.
As I remember, ALL four hobbits got ancient swords from the barrow downs, from their mini-adventure being captured and held in the wight's lair. (I NEVER liked the Tom Bombadil part of the story - it felt like it didn't fit one bit, but I did wish they would have kept some of the Barrow Downs in there. The Barrow Dows were important for two reasons: 1 - They explain why the swords the hobbits carry the rest of the story are magic, which as you mention becomes very important in the last book. 2 - It's a character development moment for Frodo, who plays the hero for the first time in the book by getting his friends out from the Barrow Downs with the help of the ring. The movie portrayed Frodo as much more of a chicken than he was in the book. In the book his problem was being too heroic and standing up to the bad guys when he was outclassed and really should have been running. In the book, thats' how the Ringwraith stabbed him with the magic blade that nearly killed him - Frodo jumped forward in front of his friends and tried to interpose himself between the wraith and his friends. - attacking it with his newly aquired barrow-down sword. He's a much more likable character in the book - very selfless and brave despite the fact that he isn't very good at fighting. One of the themes of the book is how he has to learn to use the help being provided to him by his friends and not carry the burden all himself.
I don't know what movie you were watcing but the one I saw showed Saruman chanting a bunch of gobledygook in some unknown tounge. Then he gestured with arms wide, facing the mountains. Then the camera "flew" up to the clouds and out to Caradhas, where you could still hear the whisper of Saruman's words. Then the storm worsens and lightning strikes the cliff above the trail, bringing down the small avalanche of snow blocking the trail. As if that wasn't enough of a clue, Gandalf even utters, "Saruman" after seeing the effect of the storm. And if THAT wasn't enough of a clue, Saruman even uttered beforehand about what Gandalf might have to resort to if he finds the pass blocked. I don't know how much more of a clue you need that Saruman caused the blockage of Caradhas.
Even though now that the initial announcement has been up a while, such that the slashdot effect has reduced and I can get to the site now, they still leave the broken URL up there - thanks, idiots. Because a site is DoS'ed now they assume it will always remain so. (DoS = Denail of Slashdot).
1) The appeals process is VERY long. Saying you have to wait until there's no chance of them happening anymore is going to take years and years. It means you can't talk about it until the issue is so only nobody cares about it anymore.
[snip long excerpts]
2) Reading the excerpts I see nothing that isn't a statement of fact. It's not Jackson's fault that simply telling the truth ends up painting Microsoft in a bad light. That's Microsoft's fault.
Really? That's great news. I think I'm going to borrow a Japaneese DVD from a friend who collects anime to test it out - to see if it will play on my US/Canada region player. (I'm not planning on using it for anime, but some European stuff would be nice, and this is the only quickly available test I have.)
While ogle can ignore the mandatory advertisements (the no-fast-forward sections), the region code is often enforced in the hardware not the software, so using ogle doesn't help circumvent that. (You can change region codes, but the limit of 5 (I think) switches before you are locked out is not under ogle's control.)
How can the movie industry be doomed by the move from theatre to DVD? People still have to buy the DVD, the profits of which still go to the movie company, and just like with VHS, they don't realease the DVD until after the theatre run is done, so people still do end up seeing it in the theatres that don't feel like waiting.
And it's not true that the home experience is as good as the theatre when talking about the sorts of films LucasFilm works on (where effects are important). Now, it *IS* true for movies where the special effects aren't important, or aren't even there at all, like "soap opera flicks" as I call them.
Slashdot Mirror
And that is one way in which Unix is superior. In Unix you *can*, with linking (hard or soft), put a directory inside itself if you had some reason to.
No, you see, the stupid part isn't the refusal to continue. The stupid part is the request to press F1. Think about it. Press F1 on *what*? (Keep in mind that often when this message appeared, it was too late to plug in the keyboard at that point - it woudln't be recognized without a reboot.)
Along similar lines, it used to be common to see messages like:
/earth is full.
I wonder what they changed it to. "Illegal Operation" is in fact the real technical term for what happened (a machine language instruction code that doesn't map to any real instruction on the CPU was attempted) This happens when the CPU tries executing a sequence of bytes that don't contain proper machine language code. That almost always happens because of a bad pointer error on the part of the programmer, where he ended up overwriting part of the program's own code in memory at some point.
It's a term that doesn't come up often in Unix, because Unix puts the program code into totally different memory pages from the stack and the heap, where it is flagged as read-only. Attempts to write to it are segfaults just like writing to some other programs' memory would be. (Which gives great detection of wild pointers, but prevents the technique of self-modifying code, which annoyed some early assembly programmers.)
SUBjectively there is a difference. OBjectively there isn't. The difference is contained entirely in the connotation, which isn't part of the official meaning of the word.
I'm trying to explain that its BOTH! - depending on which of the multiple definitions of "book" was being used. Chiding me for not calling it the sixth book makes as much sense as chiding me for calling part of my computer a "bus", saying "but it has no wheels and can't take any passengers - so clearly it's not a bus". It's about CONTEXT. English is an imprecise language.
I'm well aware of that. That was my point. It was stupid to call me wrong for saying it was the third "book", when "sixth book" is just as wrong, as is "first book" - it's one of those words in English that has different meanings depending on context.
That is self-contradictory. Either it's not their job to handle a slashdotting (which is where I stand, which is why I'm saying they shouldn't have taken the link down), or "Slashdot is the one causing the problem". Make up your mind - which is it?
It's not Slashdot's fault that someone's site doesn't handle a spike in traffic. When you put up a site it's for the express purpose of letting interested people visit it. All slashdot does is publicise it.
- I'm a really old and powerful part of the world, more powerful than anyone else alive.
- Oh, darn, wait, that would make me able to fix the problem with the ring myself - we have to change that or we don't have an excuse for a story - uhh - okay I'm tied to this part of the world and can't leave so someone else has to do it. Phew.
- My wife is really hot, in a magical otherworldly way.
- I'm kinda flighty and "not all there" for some reason.
- Here, have your ring back and finish the adventure.
His introduction to the story didn't really add anything at all interesting to the tale.It *IS* always correct usage to use the word "book" to refer to the physical thing made of pages between one set of covers, even when the author chose to split up the story into further "books" inside that thing. "Book" is one of those words in English with multiple definitions. I am under no requirement to use the word in the same context Tolkien was.
Brush up on your reading comprehension. I wasn't complaining about the caching. I was complaining about deleting the link. The slashdot effect is very temporary, so don't permanently break the link to fix a problem that won't be there in an hour or two.
It wasn't that they thought the public wouldn't go for a long book. It was that they though the public wouldn't go for a book published ONLY in hardcover without a paperback version - it would hurt sales to only be able to obtain the book in it's most expensive form. This is relevant because a book of that length was almost impossible to get bound in paperback without having it fall to pieces. To make a paperback version, it had to be split into smaller parts, and THAT is why it is now three parts.
So, in the end the decision to split it was a technical one to accomodate paperback binding technology. It had nothing to do with how long a story the public would tolerate.
Peter Jackson has stated numerous times he doesn't want this to be called the director's cut. It's the "extended verion". He's adamant about that because HE is the one that decided what to cut to trim the movie to three hours, so the one released in theaters is ALSO a director's cut. (This is to distinguish from the common practice when the director hands a finished product to the company, who makes FURTHER edits not under the Director's control, hence the difference between the Director's Cut and the one you saw in the theatres. In this case both the shorter theatrical release and the longer new DVD are Director's cuts.)
Tom's depth of character never surface in LOTR. The histories published later, which were NOT meant to be necessary reading to understand the story are the only place he gets fleshed out. Take that away and look at JUST the story as it was meant to be told and he seems very shallow and silly and out of place.
As I remember, ALL four hobbits got ancient swords from the barrow downs, from their mini-adventure being captured and held in the wight's lair.
(I NEVER liked the Tom Bombadil part of the story - it felt like it didn't fit one bit, but I did wish they would have kept some of the Barrow Downs in there. The Barrow Dows were important for two reasons: 1 - They explain why the swords the hobbits carry the rest of the story are magic, which as you mention becomes very important in the last book. 2 - It's a character development moment for Frodo, who plays the hero for the first time in the book by getting his friends out from the Barrow Downs with the help of the ring. The movie portrayed Frodo as much more of a chicken than he was in the book. In the book his problem was being too heroic and standing up to the bad guys when he was outclassed and really should have been running. In the book, thats' how the Ringwraith stabbed him with the magic blade that nearly killed him - Frodo jumped forward in front of his friends and tried to interpose himself between the wraith and his friends. - attacking it with his newly aquired barrow-down sword. He's a much more likable character in the book - very selfless and brave despite the fact that he isn't very good at fighting. One of the themes of the book is how he has to learn to use the help being provided to him by his friends and not carry the burden all himself.
It was in the third.
I don't know what movie you were watcing but the one I saw showed Saruman chanting a bunch of gobledygook in some unknown tounge. Then he gestured with arms wide, facing the mountains. Then the camera "flew" up to the clouds and out to Caradhas, where you could still hear the whisper of Saruman's words. Then the storm worsens and lightning strikes the cliff above the trail, bringing down the small avalanche of snow blocking the trail. As if that wasn't enough of a clue, Gandalf even utters, "Saruman" after seeing the effect of the storm. And if THAT wasn't enough of a clue, Saruman even uttered beforehand about what Gandalf might have to resort to if he finds the pass blocked. I don't know how much more of a clue you need that Saruman caused the blockage of Caradhas.
Even though now that the initial announcement has been up a while, such that the slashdot effect has reduced and I can get to the site now, they still leave the broken URL up there - thanks, idiots.
Because a site is DoS'ed now they assume it will always remain so. (DoS = Denail of Slashdot).
(Or someone cracked in and put that URL there.)
1) The appeals process is VERY long. Saying you have to wait until there's no chance of them happening anymore is going to take years and years. It means you can't talk about it until the issue is so only nobody cares about it anymore.
[snip long excerpts]
2) Reading the excerpts I see nothing that isn't a statement of fact. It's not Jackson's fault that simply telling the truth ends up painting Microsoft in a bad light. That's Microsoft's fault.
1 - If you can't talk about a case until you are sure it won't be appealed that's the same as saying you can't talk about the case period, ever.
2 - It is not an opinion to truthfully state what Microsoft's behaviour has been.
Really? That's great news. I think I'm going to borrow a Japaneese DVD from a friend who collects anime to test it out - to see if it will play on
my US/Canada region player. (I'm not planning on using it for anime, but some European stuff would be nice, and this is the only quickly available test I have.)
While ogle can ignore the mandatory advertisements (the no-fast-forward sections), the region code is often enforced in the hardware not the software, so using ogle doesn't help circumvent that. (You can change region codes, but the limit of 5 (I think) switches before you are locked out is not under ogle's control.)
How can the movie industry be doomed by the move from theatre to DVD? People still have to buy the DVD, the profits of which still go to the movie company, and just like with VHS, they don't realease the DVD until after the theatre run is done, so people still do end up seeing it in the theatres that don't feel like waiting.
And it's not true that the home experience is as good as the theatre when talking about the sorts of films LucasFilm works on (where effects are important). Now, it *IS* true for movies where the special effects aren't important, or aren't even there at all, like "soap opera flicks" as I call them.