>... That is because the humor level... is over your head
Uhhh, no. Really. I have gotten all the jokes, and haven't laughed once. You may say that I have no sense of humor or blahblahblah and that I shouldn't read it if I hate it so much. Well, it's sort of cathartic. Reading something that awful makes me appreciate the finer things in life.
>This has been possible for ages. If not the FBI, what about all the sysadmins at your ISP or people on your intranet.
Exactly. At my university, all network traffic is logged and stored on cds daily. Unless you try to break into somebody's machine, there are no problems.
I mean, does it really matter all that much if someone knows what websites you're going to? Or that you have a penchant for writing boring, one-sentence letters? Keep in mind that you're using someone else's network and they're just ensuring that you don't mess it up.
>Alienation is a pheneomena of the industrial/technological age. Dostoyevsky, Camus, Satre,
it was necessary to quote that line or order to say this about it: i agree completely.
now, about movies:
over the summer Mr Katz wrote (at Wired) a review of Armageddon in which he praised the 'geeks' that comprised the drilling crew. not only was Armageddon one of the worst movies ever, but none of the characters were geeks. they were under-dogs. an under-dog does not a geek make.
Americans have an infatuation with underdogs -- from the Bad News Bears to Revenge of the Nerds to old Jerry Lewis movies (ick), we've always been watching down-on-their-luck people rise above. now that technology is comfortably en vogue we're seeing under-dogs that are technologically talented. the representation is a bit different, i suppose, in that under-dogs are good at something now -- as opposed to simply being a case study in character 'flaws' -- the bad-at-sports cow-lick-sporting chump who gets tongue-tied around women. now we're shown the bad-at-sports cow-lick-sporting chump who gets tongue-tied around women and is good with computers.
i don't think we're seeing the emergence of a new genre so much as we're seeing the update of an old one.
nit-picking: Happiness introduced no new ideas to cinema; it was simply a crass, visually uninteresting update of David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet' (from 1986). imho, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you've never heard of panniers?
I regularly carry quite an amount of groceries on my bike, and none 'dangles from my handlebars'.
Cheers.
>... That is because the humor level ... is over your head
Uhhh, no. Really. I have gotten all the jokes, and haven't laughed once. You may say that I have no sense of humor or blahblahblah and that I shouldn't read it if I hate it so much. Well, it's sort of cathartic. Reading something that awful makes me appreciate the finer things in life.
Jokes about Linux arent among those.
>This has been possible for ages. If not the FBI, what about all the sysadmins at your ISP or people on your intranet.
Exactly. At my university, all network traffic is logged and stored on cds daily. Unless you try to break into somebody's machine, there are no problems.
I mean, does it really matter all that much if someone knows what websites you're going to? Or that you have a penchant for writing boring, one-sentence letters? Keep in mind that you're using someone else's network and they're just ensuring that you don't mess it up.
>Ebonics is just another example of people being too lazy to do something the right way.
Just like shell scripts are for people too lazy to type out all commands by hand, every time, huh?
Language is a tool, just like anything else. The easiest and quickest way to do something is often the best.
Please remove yourself from your high cultural horse. Thanks.
>Alienation is a pheneomena of the industrial /technological age. Dostoyevsky, Camus, Satre,
it was necessary to quote that line or order to say this about it: i agree completely.
now, about movies:
over the summer Mr Katz wrote (at Wired) a review of Armageddon in which he praised the 'geeks' that comprised the drilling crew. not only was Armageddon one of the worst movies ever, but none of the characters were geeks. they were under-dogs. an under-dog does not a geek make.
Americans have an infatuation with underdogs -- from the Bad News Bears to Revenge of the Nerds to old Jerry Lewis movies (ick), we've always been watching down-on-their-luck people rise above. now that technology is comfortably en vogue we're seeing under-dogs that are technologically talented. the representation is a bit different, i suppose, in that under-dogs are good at something now -- as opposed to simply being a case study in character 'flaws' -- the bad-at-sports cow-lick-sporting chump who gets tongue-tied around women. now we're shown the bad-at-sports cow-lick-sporting chump who gets tongue-tied around women and is good with computers.
i don't think we're seeing the emergence of a new genre so much as we're seeing the update of an old one.
nit-picking: Happiness introduced no new ideas to cinema; it was simply a crass, visually uninteresting update of David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet' (from 1986). imho, of course.