Heck, if you've got a decent IT staff, setting up basic stuff like webmail and the like isn't even that difficult or expensive.
Well in fairness, part of the question is, "Is it more difficult and expensive than Google, and does it provide the same results?" We can argue about the pros and cons. I have my own mail server, but the Gmail web applications are better, Google's datacenter is better, and ultimately it'd be easier to run my mail through Google. Of course, if I were going to switch over, I'd have to make sure I trusted Google more than I trusted my own datacenter and backups.
So yes, there are pros and cons, even if you have the resources to run your own mail.
Good point. Often giving someone a label like "elite snob" is just another way to look down your nose at them. It's especially funny when you find yourself being called a "northeast liberal elite" by a highly educated and wealthy accountant from Long Island.
Now now, I don't mean if you use Apple products you are automatically a prick...but Apple fanboys(girls) are rabid on a level that is just plain scary.
So you're saying you can own Apple products, use Apple products, and even like Apple products without being a prick, but if you're insane and obsessed with Apple products then you're probably an insane weirdo.
I can't really disagree, but it doesn't seem like you've said much.
Yeah, I thought you couldn't use Macs for anything business-related because they were just toys, so no real people wanted them. Could it be that I've been misinformed by Slashdot?
Yeah, mostly if someone is bothering to buy a Mac Pro, I assume they're doing video or some kind of 3D rendering (which may be video, engineering, etc.) Otherwise you're probably wasting a lot of money.
I suppose it's possible, but I think you might be going too far into doubting everything, to a point of approaching the idea that everything that happens in the movie is meaningless. As someone else pointed out, maybe even Cobb isn't real. Maybe he's a figment of someone else's imagination. But then at some point, you have to really wonder why you should care about anything happening in the movie at all
I think you have to assume that Cobb is a real guy and that, even if the whole movie is a dream, there is a dream logic to it. The emotional reality to the film is real.
I also think it makes sense to assume that some aspects of the world, some of the rules, are real. For example, I think we should accept that it's possible for people to enter each other's dreams, and that even if the entire movie is Cobb's dream, at least 1 other person in the movie is probably real. We should accept that the totems should probably work, but only by the rules that are set in the movie. Stuff like that.
If she could go back and rescue him, all she had to do was take out a Colt 45 and shoot him.
How do we know that? Why didn't Cobb simply kill Mal when they were in limbo, instead of pulling an inception? Why didn't Mal simply kill Cobb before she committed suicide?
I basically agree with your interpretation. I think that the entire movie is definitely a dream, but I think there are lots of hints that someone is trying to convince Cobb that he is in a dream. (Characters pointing out how ridiculous and dream-like his life is, and people telling him things like, "You need to wake up.") So the question is, where is that coming from? Is it just Cobb subconsciously understanding that he's in a dream and trying to wake himself up?
I think it's more likely that someone is attempting an inception on him, and that some of the characters are not projections of Cobb's unconscious. It's not clear which characters (I'm guessing Mal, Saito, and Ariadne), but some of the characters may be a team who are trying to instill an idea in Cobb the way that, on the surface-level plot, they're trying to instill an idea in Fischer.
Yeah, I don't think Cobb has any kids in reality. As far as what we're presented with, he has no recollection of their faces. He doesn't seem to have any memories of them at all except for one haunting image in a particular location, of them wearing particular clothing and sitting in a specific position, but never getting a chance to see their faces.
Then at the end of the movie, the kids are in the same location in the same place wearing the same clothing. It really doesn't make much sense unless you assume the entire movie is a dream, and his kids aren't real.
Given Nolan's previous work and attention to detail, I think there probably is an answer and it exists in the movie. I think if you knew the entire story, if you had it explained to you, then you'd realize there are lots of things that people say and do that unquestionably support that interpretation. You'd go, "Oh, so that's why she said [whatever] when she saw [some random thing]! It's because she was saying [something else that you didn't even realize was going on]!"
However, I think he means to make that truth a bit hard to pick up on the first viewing. Maybe it's even so complicated or subtle that none of us will decipher it, but I think it's probably there.
Yeah, some reviewer theorized that the movie was a metaphor for making movies. I think he's on to something, but it's not that simple.
One of the interesting aspects of the whole thing is how dream logic and movie logic so often overlap. For example, they talk in the movie about just finding yourself somewhere; the dream begins in-progress. The transitions aren't all spelled out. You're one place, and then your another place, but you don't necessarily know how you got there. People masquerade as other people. You suspend your disbelieve and accept large gaps in logic. That's how movies work.
I don't think I buy it as a strict metaphor (e.g. "the architect" is the screenplay author), but I think Nolan is definitely aware of the overlaps in the rules, and he's using those overlaps. He's using the fact that movies are inherently dream-like to give you a movie that (I believe) every frame is taking place in a dream, but you don't question it. You're inclined to accept the gaps in logic because you often do when you're watching a movie. You're willing to accept a quick cut where the characters end up someplace new and you don't know how they got there, because movies do it all the time. So even though several things in the movie should tip you off that it's all Cobb's dream, you don't realize it until the end.
The kids' ages don't quite work out. At the end, they appear to be different kids, but close to the same age, wearing identical (or close to identical) clothing, sitting in the same position in the same landscape as whenever Cobb imagines them. However, at the beginning of the movie when he talks to them on the phone, they're both older than either in his memory or at the end of the movie.
But of course it's also a little strange that he doesn't really have any memory of his kids' faces until the end of the movie. The whole thing doesn't quite make sense.
Ok, this might not be the place for this, but I'm pretty sure this is the real deal (spoilers, obviously):
When Cobb's wife killed herself, she was correct in thinking that they lived in a dream. She escaped into reality. When he didn't wake up, she went back in to rescue him. She's pulling a Mr. Charles, posing as part of his own unconscious. However, her attempts to get him to realize he was dreaming were always based on making his dream life worse, which as Cobb tells us, doesn't work. Positive feelings are stronger.
In the end, she creates an inception in him-- the idea of a friend coming into his dreams to rescue him, and the idea that escaping from the dream will allow him to be with his loved ones. The Inception works, but takes some time to grow-- so he doesn't snap out of things immediately, but the top spinning at the end is a sign that the process has worked.
The big question in my mind is, who in the dream is real? Is Mal pulling the Inception all by herself, or are some of the characters members of her team? My guess is that Ariadne and Saito are part of Mal's team, or else she's sometimes masquerading as them (the way the forger does).
Yeah, a better analogy would be if NBC owned large stretches of highway and was permitted to charge delivery trucks extra if they were carrying DVDs produced by Warner Bros. And if they could also block or charge extra if the trucks were delivering mail that contained criticism of NBC/Universal.
But there is no real free market in the ISP sector, because there is no real competition.
It depends on how you define "free market". To some people, a "free market" is one in which businesses can do whatever they please because there is no government regulation or oversight.
And fair enough, you can define words how you want. On the other hand, it's worth noting that this kind of "free market" does not generate the "market forces" and "invisible hand" that are supposed to make everything magically work out.
Ok, next question: Is it legal for me to help some other owner break technical limitations or bypass security devices?
Next question after that: Is it legal for me to distribute information or computer code that enables others to break technical limitations or bypass security devices?
he also managed the Xbox and that worked out pretty well.
Except for losing out to the Wii, having a... what is it? 55% failure rate?
I'm not sure that many of them can be traced back to Ballmer.
When your in charge, lots of things trace indirectly back to you. Who did you hire, and who did you fire? Who didn't you hire, and who didn't you fire? What guidance did you give to your management team, and what guidance didn't you give? It's not just "What could he have done to make Windows/Office markets grow?" but "What other business opportunities did he fail to capitalize on while sitting on Windows/Office?" It's a whole wide world out there, with loads of opportunities.
I'm not saying that Ballmer is bad at his job. I honestly don't know enough to say, really, except from my perception of how Microsoft is doing. However, if you think Microsoft isn't doing as well as it should, then I think you have a hard time not blaming Balmer a little. He's in charge. If it's someone else's fault, he should have fired that person and replaced them.
Oh, right. That'd be good advice if you were allowed to install whatever you wanted on the device. Only problem is, you can't, because it's not an open device.
Android is open. A specific Android-based phone might not be.
In a similar vein, Linux is open, but a specific Linux-based device (e.g. TiVo) might not be.
Well not quite, though, and therein lies the problem. Android is open, but none of the Android phones are. Some are easier to hack than others, but unless you want to hack your phone, you're stuck with whatever Android image was installed by your phone's manufacturer.
With Linux, on the other hand, I can buy pretty much any computer I want and install any distribution I want on it. By default. No trickery required.
If we're going to start considering devices to be "open" because you theoretically can hack them, then the iPhone is open too.
Which ones require absolutely no hacking to root it and install an alternate image? It's my understanding that even the Nexus One wasn't simply "open".
Does EasyTether support WiFi? Because what I need is specifically to have my phone work as a mobile wireless access point. To my understanding, you can get USB or Bluetooth tethering working without hacking the phone, but not WiFi tethering.
But really that's a side issue anyhow. The point is, I can't do with it as I please. If I buy the iPhone, I'm able to do whatever is within the confines of what Apple/AT&T will allow; if I buy the Incredible, I'm allowed to do whatever is within the confines of what HTC/Verizon will allow. In either case, I can hack the phone and get more functionality.
There may be some practical differences in what Apple/AT&T allow vs what HTC/Verizon will allow, but either way I'm on someone's leash.
All the Android phones need to be hacked, though. Even the Nexus One, which I've heard is easy to hack, requires you to hack it to get full root access. If you have to hack the phone to make it open, then it's really no better than the iPhone. You can hack the iPhone too.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, if you've got a decent IT staff, setting up basic stuff like webmail and the like isn't even that difficult or expensive.
Well in fairness, part of the question is, "Is it more difficult and expensive than Google, and does it provide the same results?" We can argue about the pros and cons. I have my own mail server, but the Gmail web applications are better, Google's datacenter is better, and ultimately it'd be easier to run my mail through Google. Of course, if I were going to switch over, I'd have to make sure I trusted Google more than I trusted my own datacenter and backups.
So yes, there are pros and cons, even if you have the resources to run your own mail.
Good point. Often giving someone a label like "elite snob" is just another way to look down your nose at them. It's especially funny when you find yourself being called a "northeast liberal elite" by a highly educated and wealthy accountant from Long Island.
Now now, I don't mean if you use Apple products you are automatically a prick...but Apple fanboys(girls) are rabid on a level that is just plain scary.
So you're saying you can own Apple products, use Apple products, and even like Apple products without being a prick, but if you're insane and obsessed with Apple products then you're probably an insane weirdo.
I can't really disagree, but it doesn't seem like you've said much.
Yeah, I thought you couldn't use Macs for anything business-related because they were just toys, so no real people wanted them. Could it be that I've been misinformed by Slashdot?
Yeah, mostly if someone is bothering to buy a Mac Pro, I assume they're doing video or some kind of 3D rendering (which may be video, engineering, etc.) Otherwise you're probably wasting a lot of money.
I suppose it's possible, but I think you might be going too far into doubting everything, to a point of approaching the idea that everything that happens in the movie is meaningless. As someone else pointed out, maybe even Cobb isn't real. Maybe he's a figment of someone else's imagination. But then at some point, you have to really wonder why you should care about anything happening in the movie at all
I think you have to assume that Cobb is a real guy and that, even if the whole movie is a dream, there is a dream logic to it. The emotional reality to the film is real.
I also think it makes sense to assume that some aspects of the world, some of the rules, are real. For example, I think we should accept that it's possible for people to enter each other's dreams, and that even if the entire movie is Cobb's dream, at least 1 other person in the movie is probably real. We should accept that the totems should probably work, but only by the rules that are set in the movie. Stuff like that.
If she could go back and rescue him, all she had to do was take out a Colt 45 and shoot him.
How do we know that? Why didn't Cobb simply kill Mal when they were in limbo, instead of pulling an inception? Why didn't Mal simply kill Cobb before she committed suicide?
I basically agree with your interpretation. I think that the entire movie is definitely a dream, but I think there are lots of hints that someone is trying to convince Cobb that he is in a dream. (Characters pointing out how ridiculous and dream-like his life is, and people telling him things like, "You need to wake up.") So the question is, where is that coming from? Is it just Cobb subconsciously understanding that he's in a dream and trying to wake himself up?
I think it's more likely that someone is attempting an inception on him, and that some of the characters are not projections of Cobb's unconscious. It's not clear which characters (I'm guessing Mal, Saito, and Ariadne), but some of the characters may be a team who are trying to instill an idea in Cobb the way that, on the surface-level plot, they're trying to instill an idea in Fischer.
Yeah, I don't think Cobb has any kids in reality. As far as what we're presented with, he has no recollection of their faces. He doesn't seem to have any memories of them at all except for one haunting image in a particular location, of them wearing particular clothing and sitting in a specific position, but never getting a chance to see their faces.
Then at the end of the movie, the kids are in the same location in the same place wearing the same clothing. It really doesn't make much sense unless you assume the entire movie is a dream, and his kids aren't real.
Given Nolan's previous work and attention to detail, I think there probably is an answer and it exists in the movie. I think if you knew the entire story, if you had it explained to you, then you'd realize there are lots of things that people say and do that unquestionably support that interpretation. You'd go, "Oh, so that's why she said [whatever] when she saw [some random thing]! It's because she was saying [something else that you didn't even realize was going on]!"
However, I think he means to make that truth a bit hard to pick up on the first viewing. Maybe it's even so complicated or subtle that none of us will decipher it, but I think it's probably there.
Yeah, some reviewer theorized that the movie was a metaphor for making movies. I think he's on to something, but it's not that simple.
One of the interesting aspects of the whole thing is how dream logic and movie logic so often overlap. For example, they talk in the movie about just finding yourself somewhere; the dream begins in-progress. The transitions aren't all spelled out. You're one place, and then your another place, but you don't necessarily know how you got there. People masquerade as other people. You suspend your disbelieve and accept large gaps in logic. That's how movies work.
I don't think I buy it as a strict metaphor (e.g. "the architect" is the screenplay author), but I think Nolan is definitely aware of the overlaps in the rules, and he's using those overlaps. He's using the fact that movies are inherently dream-like to give you a movie that (I believe) every frame is taking place in a dream, but you don't question it. You're inclined to accept the gaps in logic because you often do when you're watching a movie. You're willing to accept a quick cut where the characters end up someplace new and you don't know how they got there, because movies do it all the time. So even though several things in the movie should tip you off that it's all Cobb's dream, you don't realize it until the end.
The kids' ages don't quite work out. At the end, they appear to be different kids, but close to the same age, wearing identical (or close to identical) clothing, sitting in the same position in the same landscape as whenever Cobb imagines them. However, at the beginning of the movie when he talks to them on the phone, they're both older than either in his memory or at the end of the movie.
But of course it's also a little strange that he doesn't really have any memory of his kids' faces until the end of the movie. The whole thing doesn't quite make sense.
Ok, this might not be the place for this, but I'm pretty sure this is the real deal (spoilers, obviously):
When Cobb's wife killed herself, she was correct in thinking that they lived in a dream. She escaped into reality. When he didn't wake up, she went back in to rescue him. She's pulling a Mr. Charles, posing as part of his own unconscious. However, her attempts to get him to realize he was dreaming were always based on making his dream life worse, which as Cobb tells us, doesn't work. Positive feelings are stronger.
In the end, she creates an inception in him-- the idea of a friend coming into his dreams to rescue him, and the idea that escaping from the dream will allow him to be with his loved ones. The Inception works, but takes some time to grow-- so he doesn't snap out of things immediately, but the top spinning at the end is a sign that the process has worked.
The big question in my mind is, who in the dream is real? Is Mal pulling the Inception all by herself, or are some of the characters members of her team? My guess is that Ariadne and Saito are part of Mal's team, or else she's sometimes masquerading as them (the way the forger does).
Yeah, a better analogy would be if NBC owned large stretches of highway and was permitted to charge delivery trucks extra if they were carrying DVDs produced by Warner Bros. And if they could also block or charge extra if the trucks were delivering mail that contained criticism of NBC/Universal.
But there is no real free market in the ISP sector, because there is no real competition.
It depends on how you define "free market". To some people, a "free market" is one in which businesses can do whatever they please because there is no government regulation or oversight.
And fair enough, you can define words how you want. On the other hand, it's worth noting that this kind of "free market" does not generate the "market forces" and "invisible hand" that are supposed to make everything magically work out.
Ok, next question: Is it legal for me to help some other owner break technical limitations or bypass security devices?
Next question after that: Is it legal for me to distribute information or computer code that enables others to break technical limitations or bypass security devices?
he also managed the Xbox and that worked out pretty well.
Except for losing out to the Wii, having a... what is it? 55% failure rate?
I'm not sure that many of them can be traced back to Ballmer.
When your in charge, lots of things trace indirectly back to you. Who did you hire, and who did you fire? Who didn't you hire, and who didn't you fire? What guidance did you give to your management team, and what guidance didn't you give? It's not just "What could he have done to make Windows/Office markets grow?" but "What other business opportunities did he fail to capitalize on while sitting on Windows/Office?" It's a whole wide world out there, with loads of opportunities.
I'm not saying that Ballmer is bad at his job. I honestly don't know enough to say, really, except from my perception of how Microsoft is doing. However, if you think Microsoft isn't doing as well as it should, then I think you have a hard time not blaming Balmer a little. He's in charge. If it's someone else's fault, he should have fired that person and replaced them.
Whereas Verizon sells...?
Well a good shepherd takes good care of his sheep, all the way up until...
Oh, right. That'd be good advice if you were allowed to install whatever you wanted on the device. Only problem is, you can't, because it's not an open device.
Android is open. A specific Android-based phone might not be.
In a similar vein, Linux is open, but a specific Linux-based device (e.g. TiVo) might not be.
Well not quite, though, and therein lies the problem. Android is open, but none of the Android phones are. Some are easier to hack than others, but unless you want to hack your phone, you're stuck with whatever Android image was installed by your phone's manufacturer.
With Linux, on the other hand, I can buy pretty much any computer I want and install any distribution I want on it. By default. No trickery required.
If we're going to start considering devices to be "open" because you theoretically can hack them, then the iPhone is open too.
Which ones require absolutely no hacking to root it and install an alternate image? It's my understanding that even the Nexus One wasn't simply "open".
Does EasyTether support WiFi? Because what I need is specifically to have my phone work as a mobile wireless access point. To my understanding, you can get USB or Bluetooth tethering working without hacking the phone, but not WiFi tethering.
But really that's a side issue anyhow. The point is, I can't do with it as I please. If I buy the iPhone, I'm able to do whatever is within the confines of what Apple/AT&T will allow; if I buy the Incredible, I'm allowed to do whatever is within the confines of what HTC/Verizon will allow. In either case, I can hack the phone and get more functionality.
There may be some practical differences in what Apple/AT&T allow vs what HTC/Verizon will allow, but either way I'm on someone's leash.
Supports both USB Tether and Bluetooth DUN.
No WiFi, no deal.
Um... then don't buy an Incredible.
All the Android phones need to be hacked, though. Even the Nexus One, which I've heard is easy to hack, requires you to hack it to get full root access. If you have to hack the phone to make it open, then it's really no better than the iPhone. You can hack the iPhone too.