What happened to all that nonsense about J&SB Strike Back being the final film of the "Jersey Trilogy?" What happened to his desires to branch out and "move beyond" the dick and fart jokes? What about all the maturing he kept talking about?
I'll tell you exactly what happened. Jersey Girl underperformed and didn't make back its theatrical budget.
And now, all of the sudden Kevin Smith is not only going back on everything he said he would, but he's actually making a sequel the film that got everything started. He's falling back on the old fanbase and perverting the original film (it's inevitable...you won't be able to watch the first one the same way once you've seen the sequel...see The Matrix).
He had the opportunity to direct Green Hornet (which he's writing), and he turned it down because he is, if you can believe it, afraid of directing action scenes. He had the chance to branch out and won't do it. He keeps talking about the new Fletch movie but we never see anything come of it. For years, he's talked up the Clerks animated movie (which is what this should be, since the cartoons were the most genius cartoons ever made) but we've never seen squat.
So now we'll get a new rip-off sequel of people standing around speaking overwritten dialogue. He'll probably have Randall or Jay rag on Jersey Girl at some point, and the fanbase will call this brilliant and "ironic." The Quick Stop will probably be recreated on a stage in LA, and take $5 million to film. We'll get a "return to his roots" article in Time. And we'll get one steaming turd of a film.
I mean, come on. "Clerks 2: The Passion of the Clerks?" The title itself is already tired and cliched.
FS stands for "Future Storage." And WinFS isn't being pushed to the next version of Windows after Longhorn. It will be available in beta form for Longhorn, and will probably be a standard download off of Windows Update.
Didn't we already see this news article last week? I guess there's never a wrong time to bash Microsoft.
I expect lots of posturing and Microsoft bashing over this "pretentious" mouse. After all, it's Microsoft that made it.
However, if this was an Apple mouse, I would expect lots of "innovation" and "sexy" comments. And if OSTG made this mouse, I'd expect a full-on positive review complete with screenshots.
Did you even read my post? WinFS isn't cancelled, it's being shipped as a beta on release of Longhorn. I stated that very fact in my post. The CNN article also states that.
will be shipped later, with a test, or beta version, of WinFS shipping along with Longhorn in 2006.
Where do you get "cancelled" from that? Where do you get "scaled back?" Nowhere in any article does it state WinFS is getting scaled back.
How about an apology from you to me for not actually reading my post? Sigh...idiocy.
Windows 2000 was the NT4 successor geared toward corporate users.
I don't know if you noticed, but XP was geared toward consumers. It got people off of 9x kernels, and for that I am eternally grateful! Not to mention System Restore, increased application compatibility, and various other minor features.
You upgrade because Longhorn will replace cruddy Win32 with sleek.NET, will be entirely DirectX-accelerated, and will sport a whole new interface codenamed Aero Glass. Video drivers will be pushed into userspace (finally), and various other major core architecture changes will take place.
Note that the features in this article being made available for Windows XP are APIs. Those can be easily backported. Longhorn itself, however, is a major architectural change.
They're not scaling back WinFS. There's no where in the article it even states this. All it says is that it will be available in beta form upon the client release.
For some reason, Slashdot has trouble reporting anything accurately on WinfS. Anyone remember the previous case where Microsoft decided not to include some of the more esoteric features (like some networking functions). Slashdot, of course, picked it up and reported it as "WinFS cancelled," and other tech news sites picked it up. For months, people on Slashdot continued to refer to WinFS as cancelled, when they were blissfully ignorant to the fact it wasn't. Sigh. All it takes is a little basic research first.
I already explained the reason. You just want to bash Valve. The reason these preloads happen (Half-Life 2 isn't the first to do this, you know) is to save load on the servers when the full game gets put on there. Hence these being unchanged assets.
I guess truth isn't as interesting as imagined controversy.
It's to download unchanging assets now, so that when the full game is released on Steam, the servers aren't hit as hard because you already have the majority of static assets. You won't have to download as much.
I know it's extremely hip on Slashdot to bash Valve for some bizarre reason, but get real.
I will get Half-Life 2 to see where the story goes, but I won't be paying for it.
Wow, you'll pirate the game illegally. You sure showed them.
If you were really so righteous, you just wouldn't play the game. You bitch about them then outright admit you'll still be playing their game. But hey, as long as you get to reap the benefits of their work without giving back, right?
What if your CD gets scratched or gets lost? No matter what computer you sit down on, no matter where you are in the world, if you install the Steam client and log into your account, you instantly have access to all your games and stats again.
With your personal insults and unrelated tangeants, you've illustrated all of my points about your mindset.
Yes, criticizing the feds for spending resources on busting piracy is an attempt to paint them as the wrongdoers instead of the pirates. Yes, they are pirates.
Not if it's a piracy ring. Feds often get involved when a wider investigation is needed.
Again, this is splitting hairs to distract from the issue of pirates breaking the law. Pinning the blame on the feds for being involved in the first place.
No, RIAA sues more suspect music pirates. Just because they love music, that doesn't make pirating music okay. That is the same kind of spin as calling all Democrats "bleeding heart liberals" or calling forces in Iraq "liberators" or calling Linux hackers "hippies."
I may risk my karma for posting that simple truth, but it is the truth. And both legally and ethically, there is no justification for pirating artists' music. There are plenty of legal online alternatives now, like iTunes. Young people just have a whiny sense of entitlement now because they're used to the convenience of pirating everything under the sun, and they get bitter when that freeloading ride is taken away.
Classic circular argument. This is like saying the sky is blue because the sky is blue. You also made a moral judgement in your first point which you completely ignore here. Nice try.
It's not a circular argument at all. Someone said, "With all this other stuff going on, why are they doing this?" The answer is that laws are intended to be enforced, or else they don't become laws. I'm not sure what argument is circular about the fact that laws get enforced. I'll let you work that one out.
It may not take 100% of the resources, but it is draining resources that arguably could be better spent elsewhere. You're ignoring the point. Again, nice try.
Describe exactly how having some local cops and field agents raid some computers is "draining resources" that could "arguably be better spent elsewhere." Again, what's the point of having a law if you're not going to enforce it?
Are you sure you aren't moonlighting for SCO?
Speaking of misdirection...
How can you say that it's absolutely and inarguably immoral when you don't posit a single shred of evidence to support your position?
I don't need "evidence" to point out the obvious fact that taking the work of an artist who spent money renting a studio, buying instruments, recording an album for months, then had it shipped to stores only to have it taken for free online by music pirates, is inethical.
Doesn't the fact that there are millions of people who don't agree with you put the lie to your 'absolute and inarguable' stance?
Uh, no, it doesn't. Millions of people thought the world was flat, and millions of people thought slavery was a good idea. If your actual argument is based on the idea of mass opinion, I've already won this discussion. I love that you press for me to "prove" my points yet you pull a random statistic out of your ass.
Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and told them that they had to build their livelihood on a unsustainable business model.
Ah, the pirate way. A normal business model that is under attack by law violaters is suddenly an "unsustainable business model." That's like saying the basic capitalism of a convenience store is an unsustainable business model if it gets hit by robbers.
A fallible business model is one that doesn't survive in the marketplace, not one that is torn down by people breaking the law. Geez, get out of the dorm room.
Just ask the buggy whip makers about it when auto makers came along.
Buggy whip makers were rendered obsolete by a legally better product. Your little analogy has nothing to do with this and is amateur at best. There are already legal online venues for buying music. iTunes as well as all the other myriads of online stores. There is no need to break the law and fuck over artist rights, but the whiny sense of entitlement that plagues this generation means you'll have a hard time convincing people to be honest anymore.
Nice straw man argument there, bucko. You seem to forget that the only reason the GPL exists is because copyright laws exist. If there weren't any copyright laws there would be no need for the GPL.
And so the college dorm room agenda emerges. You're anti-copyright. The amusing aspect of that mindset is that it exists in the minds of freeloaders who are only able to think of it because capitalism and copyright has spawned an environment that allows them to be comfortable enough to think of it! It's because of copyrights and capitalism that you have the computers and technology and modern world that allows you to pretend you're enlightened enough to reject it. Anti-establishment contrarians are really just going against the grain to appear intelligent. Think about that for a while.
My point was that GPL violations are given the red alert on Slashdot, and all the geeks jump to arms, yet they're perfectly willing to violate other people's copyrights when it suits them. It's a double-standard. If you don't believe in copyrights, then you obviously don't believe in the rules of the GPL either. You've basically admitted the rules apply in one situation and not another. Which is called hypocrisy, my friend. Take care.
Just because there is a law against something doesn't make it immoral or wrong. If you think all laws are just and moral, then you've got your head in the sand.
That's a completely irrelevant argument to this discussion. The point is that the reason the law was enforced is because it's a LAW.
The fact that an organization has directed its energies towards a certain policy means that there is less energy to direct towards other policies.
This ignores the size and resources of the organization. Conducting a piracy raid does not take up 100% of the resources of the entire government. At most, it took up the time of some local cops and a field agent. I already addressed this.
No organization has the power to create more resources from thin air. The fact that Foo Bar Inc. directs manpower behind A means they definitely have less manpower to put behind B.
In that case, why bother issuing speeding tickets. There's always something worse to prevent, gasp!
See point 1. Sure, breaking the law is illegal, but to say it's also automatically immoral is simply ignorant.
But taking someone's work without paying for it is, absolutely and inarguably, immoral. There really isn't any argument around this one. You didn't ask the artists' permission to get the stuff they made in order to sell and make a living. You're probably the same kind of person who jumps up and down at the first reports of a GPL copyright violation by some company. Think about that double-standard for a moment.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to all that nonsense about J&SB Strike Back being the final film of the "Jersey Trilogy?" What happened to his desires to branch out and "move beyond" the dick and fart jokes? What about all the maturing he kept talking about?
I'll tell you exactly what happened. Jersey Girl underperformed and didn't make back its theatrical budget.
And now, all of the sudden Kevin Smith is not only going back on everything he said he would, but he's actually making a sequel the film that got everything started. He's falling back on the old fanbase and perverting the original film (it's inevitable...you won't be able to watch the first one the same way once you've seen the sequel...see The Matrix).
He had the opportunity to direct Green Hornet (which he's writing), and he turned it down because he is, if you can believe it, afraid of directing action scenes. He had the chance to branch out and won't do it. He keeps talking about the new Fletch movie but we never see anything come of it. For years, he's talked up the Clerks animated movie (which is what this should be, since the cartoons were the most genius cartoons ever made) but we've never seen squat.
So now we'll get a new rip-off sequel of people standing around speaking overwritten dialogue. He'll probably have Randall or Jay rag on Jersey Girl at some point, and the fanbase will call this brilliant and "ironic." The Quick Stop will probably be recreated on a stage in LA, and take $5 million to film. We'll get a "return to his roots" article in Time. And we'll get one steaming turd of a film.
I mean, come on. "Clerks 2: The Passion of the Clerks?" The title itself is already tired and cliched.
FS stands for "Future Storage." And WinFS isn't being pushed to the next version of Windows after Longhorn. It will be available in beta form for Longhorn, and will probably be a standard download off of Windows Update.
Didn't we already see this news article last week? I guess there's never a wrong time to bash Microsoft.
I expect lots of posturing and Microsoft bashing over this "pretentious" mouse. After all, it's Microsoft that made it.
However, if this was an Apple mouse, I would expect lots of "innovation" and "sexy" comments. And if OSTG made this mouse, I'd expect a full-on positive review complete with screenshots.
*sigh*
Did you even read my post? WinFS isn't cancelled, it's being shipped as a beta on release of Longhorn. I stated that very fact in my post. The CNN article also states that.
will be shipped later, with a test, or beta version, of WinFS shipping along with Longhorn in 2006.
Where do you get "cancelled" from that? Where do you get "scaled back?" Nowhere in any article does it state WinFS is getting scaled back.
How about an apology from you to me for not actually reading my post? Sigh...idiocy.
What was the point of the Microsoft Bob link other than to bash Microsoft over something that came out for Windows 3.1 an entire decade ago?
I've never gotten the Clippy/Microsoft Bob obsession around here.
Windows 2000 was the NT4 successor geared toward corporate users.
I don't know if you noticed, but XP was geared toward consumers. It got people off of 9x kernels, and for that I am eternally grateful! Not to mention System Restore, increased application compatibility, and various other minor features.
You upgrade because Longhorn will replace cruddy Win32 with sleek .NET, will be entirely DirectX-accelerated, and will sport a whole new interface codenamed Aero Glass. Video drivers will be pushed into userspace (finally), and various other major core architecture changes will take place.
Note that the features in this article being made available for Windows XP are APIs. Those can be easily backported. Longhorn itself, however, is a major architectural change.
They're not scaling back WinFS. There's no where in the article it even states this. All it says is that it will be available in beta form upon the client release.
For some reason, Slashdot has trouble reporting anything accurately on WinfS. Anyone remember the previous case where Microsoft decided not to include some of the more esoteric features (like some networking functions). Slashdot, of course, picked it up and reported it as "WinFS cancelled," and other tech news sites picked it up. For months, people on Slashdot continued to refer to WinFS as cancelled, when they were blissfully ignorant to the fact it wasn't. Sigh. All it takes is a little basic research first.
I already explained the reason. You just want to bash Valve. The reason these preloads happen (Half-Life 2 isn't the first to do this, you know) is to save load on the servers when the full game gets put on there. Hence these being unchanged assets.
I guess truth isn't as interesting as imagined controversy.
It's to download unchanging assets now, so that when the full game is released on Steam, the servers aren't hit as hard because you already have the majority of static assets. You won't have to download as much.
I know it's extremely hip on Slashdot to bash Valve for some bizarre reason, but get real.
The point of a preload is to download unchanging assets now so that when the full game comes out, the servers aren't hit as hard.
Google-like searching is the point of WinFS in Longhorn. It would be put in KDE eventually. May as well put it in now before Windows does.
The "parent poster" (which is really you) was personally insulting. It's all they had left. You haven't disputed a single point I made. Plonk!
I will get Half-Life 2 to see where the story goes, but I won't be paying for it.
Wow, you'll pirate the game illegally. You sure showed them.
If you were really so righteous, you just wouldn't play the game. You bitch about them then outright admit you'll still be playing their game. But hey, as long as you get to reap the benefits of their work without giving back, right?
With it, you could have had access to Condition Zero, the Counterstrike beta, and other goodies for free.
Valve banned a bunch of accounts that were doing things like that. There's a pretty famous "owned" picture over on halflife2.net about it.
What if your CD gets scratched or gets lost? No matter what computer you sit down on, no matter where you are in the world, if you install the Steam client and log into your account, you instantly have access to all your games and stats again.
...pointless skins for media players can go to hell. Foobar 2000 forever!
Ashcroft believes that P2P is equivalent to piracy.
Learn to read. He said it does NOT stand for that. Plonk.
Two things:
1.) Point out where I wrote the word "theft."
2.) Explain to me how taking the work of an artist without paying for it and without their permission is somehow not inethical.
Try harder next time.
With your personal insults and unrelated tangeants, you've illustrated all of my points about your mindset.
Yes, criticizing the feds for spending resources on busting piracy is an attempt to paint them as the wrongdoers instead of the pirates. Yes, they are pirates.
Not if it's a piracy ring. Feds often get involved when a wider investigation is needed.
Again, this is splitting hairs to distract from the issue of pirates breaking the law. Pinning the blame on the feds for being involved in the first place.
"RIAA Sues More Music Lovers."
No, RIAA sues more suspect music pirates. Just because they love music, that doesn't make pirating music okay. That is the same kind of spin as calling all Democrats "bleeding heart liberals" or calling forces in Iraq "liberators" or calling Linux hackers "hippies."
I may risk my karma for posting that simple truth, but it is the truth. And both legally and ethically, there is no justification for pirating artists' music. There are plenty of legal online alternatives now, like iTunes. Young people just have a whiny sense of entitlement now because they're used to the convenience of pirating everything under the sun, and they get bitter when that freeloading ride is taken away.
Classic circular argument. This is like saying the sky is blue because the sky is blue. You also made a moral judgement in your first point which you completely ignore here. Nice try.
It's not a circular argument at all. Someone said, "With all this other stuff going on, why are they doing this?" The answer is that laws are intended to be enforced, or else they don't become laws. I'm not sure what argument is circular about the fact that laws get enforced. I'll let you work that one out.
It may not take 100% of the resources, but it is draining resources that arguably could be better spent elsewhere. You're ignoring the point. Again, nice try.
Describe exactly how having some local cops and field agents raid some computers is "draining resources" that could "arguably be better spent elsewhere." Again, what's the point of having a law if you're not going to enforce it?
Are you sure you aren't moonlighting for SCO?
Speaking of misdirection...
How can you say that it's absolutely and inarguably immoral when you don't posit a single shred of evidence to support your position?
I don't need "evidence" to point out the obvious fact that taking the work of an artist who spent money renting a studio, buying instruments, recording an album for months, then had it shipped to stores only to have it taken for free online by music pirates, is inethical.
Doesn't the fact that there are millions of people who don't agree with you put the lie to your 'absolute and inarguable' stance?
Uh, no, it doesn't. Millions of people thought the world was flat, and millions of people thought slavery was a good idea. If your actual argument is based on the idea of mass opinion, I've already won this discussion. I love that you press for me to "prove" my points yet you pull a random statistic out of your ass.
Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and told them that they had to build their livelihood on a unsustainable business model.
Ah, the pirate way. A normal business model that is under attack by law violaters is suddenly an "unsustainable business model." That's like saying the basic capitalism of a convenience store is an unsustainable business model if it gets hit by robbers.
A fallible business model is one that doesn't survive in the marketplace, not one that is torn down by people breaking the law. Geez, get out of the dorm room.
Just ask the buggy whip makers about it when auto makers came along.
Buggy whip makers were rendered obsolete by a legally better product. Your little analogy has nothing to do with this and is amateur at best. There are already legal online venues for buying music. iTunes as well as all the other myriads of online stores. There is no need to break the law and fuck over artist rights, but the whiny sense of entitlement that plagues this generation means you'll have a hard time convincing people to be honest anymore.
Nice straw man argument there, bucko. You seem to forget that the only reason the GPL exists is because copyright laws exist. If there weren't any copyright laws there would be no need for the GPL.
And so the college dorm room agenda emerges. You're anti-copyright. The amusing aspect of that mindset is that it exists in the minds of freeloaders who are only able to think of it because capitalism and copyright has spawned an environment that allows them to be comfortable enough to think of it! It's because of copyrights and capitalism that you have the computers and technology and modern world that allows you to pretend you're enlightened enough to reject it. Anti-establishment contrarians are really just going against the grain to appear intelligent. Think about that for a while.
My point was that GPL violations are given the red alert on Slashdot, and all the geeks jump to arms, yet they're perfectly willing to violate other people's copyrights when it suits them. It's a double-standard. If you don't believe in copyrights, then you obviously don't believe in the rules of the GPL either. You've basically admitted the rules apply in one situation and not another. Which is called hypocrisy, my friend. Take care.
Speaking of misdirection...
Just because there is a law against something doesn't make it immoral or wrong. If you think all laws are just and moral, then you've got your head in the sand.
That's a completely irrelevant argument to this discussion. The point is that the reason the law was enforced is because it's a LAW.
The fact that an organization has directed its energies towards a certain policy means that there is less energy to direct towards other policies.
This ignores the size and resources of the organization. Conducting a piracy raid does not take up 100% of the resources of the entire government. At most, it took up the time of some local cops and a field agent. I already addressed this.
No organization has the power to create more resources from thin air. The fact that Foo Bar Inc. directs manpower behind A means they definitely have less manpower to put behind B.
In that case, why bother issuing speeding tickets. There's always something worse to prevent, gasp!
See point 1. Sure, breaking the law is illegal, but to say it's also automatically immoral is simply ignorant.
But taking someone's work without paying for it is, absolutely and inarguably, immoral. There really isn't any argument around this one. You didn't ask the artists' permission to get the stuff they made in order to sell and make a living. You're probably the same kind of person who jumps up and down at the first reports of a GPL copyright violation by some company. Think about that double-standard for a moment.