Re:See the original film.
on
Review: Insomnia
·
· Score: 3, Informative
While "original" is undisputed, "much better" is up for debate. Christopher Nolan after all directed Memento -- something Katz neglects to mention -- so he is not your average Hollywood hack.
Just for comparison, Ebert gave both films 3.5 stars, and in his Sun-Times review about the new film he says
"Insomnia," the first film directed by Christopher Nolan since his famous "Memento" (2001), is a remake of a Norwegian film of the same name, made in 1998 by Erik Skjoldbjaerg. That was a strong, atmospheric, dread-heavy film, and so is this one. Unlike most remakes, the Nolan "Insomnia" is not a pale retread, but a re-examination of the material, like a new production of a good play.
I was born overseas, lived in the Philippines for two years, and have been to some 15 other countries. I enjoyed and found something worthwhile in all of them -- and I wouldn't trade any of them for the US.
But hey AC, don't let me get in the way of your stereotyping 275 million people from virtually every culture and ethnicity on the planet.
Oh, and of course Canadians don't have a desire to move to the US -- they already have largely unfettered access to most of its benefits. Canadians can trade with, travel to, and live and work in the US almost as if they were citizens here. Nobody sees Peter Jennings on the TV and thinks "Hey, why do they have a foreigner hosting the news?" You may hate being thought of as the 51st state, but you derive a hell of a lot of benefit from it -- if any other country plagued us with Bryan Adams *and* Celine Dion, it would be grounds for war. (But feel free to kill all the Baldwin brothers whenever you feel like it.)
My company lists their open source projects here. No missile guidance systems, just stuff like virtual workspaces, and I haven't worked on any of these projects so I can't vouch for their quality/usefulness. But hey, if you're a US taxpayer you paid for them, so have at it.
If a waste container breaks open down there (and don't think you can economically design one that won't -- the forces down there are spectacular), there's not much you can do except cover it with dirt or other materials. "Oh, it's just one broken waste cannister at the bottom of the entire ocean" -- see how well that goes over with Greenpeace.
Aww, who cares? The animals down there already glow in the dark...
As I recall, The Simpsons had a "running start" since it began as short segments on the Tracy Ullman Show. I forget exactly when it was spun off, but it's interesting that it so outlived the show where it started. Are the segments from the Tracy Ullman Show on the Season 1 DVD? That would be mighty cool.
One thing that occured to me (with the benefit of hindsight, of course): Against a short-bladed knife or a box cutter, wouldn't the seat cushion make for a decent shield? Supposedly it has the straps you can slip your arms through (I've never pulled one up myself). The blade, whether thrusting or slashing, might get bogged down in the foam. Cuts to the forearm wouldn't go as deep, and it's harder to locate behind the cushion. Slip the seat cushion over one arm, grab an oxygen bottle or fire extinguisher with the other, and you've got a much more even fight.
Like I said, easy to come up with after the fact, but something to chew on...
Re:The views of a Muslim in NY
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How the fuck did this idiocy get modded up to +5?
Totally atheist ideoligies have killed at least as many people in the last century as any religious fanatic.
Soviet Pogroms: 20 million
Khmer Rouge: 2 million
Chinese Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution: ?? million
Moron. Read the First Amendment. People can worship or not worship whatever deity, life-force, or shrub they want to. We have laws in this country to to govern what people can do *to* each other. You want to "rehabilitate" those who have a religious bent? Go fuck yourself.
Yeah, the Bill of Rights is a real bitch that way. It means defending the rights of people you don't necessarily like. Life would be so much simpler if Amendments 1-10 just added "...except for people who really get on our nerves."
Yeah, I assume it's a parody of the warnings they would put on early CDs of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. Some record labels would put them on almost all their classical CDs.
This has already happened. Some folks in New London, CT, are getting their houses seized just so Pfizer can have bigger digs. The town government justifies the seizure as "public use" because they'll get more tax revenue out of Pfizer than Grandma. Great rationale, huh? Since they define revenue generation as a public use, it basically justifies any whoring of themselves they can come up with. I seem to recall another town in New York state doing the same for a shopping center.
Re:Screwed by Laserdisc? No way.
on
The Joys of HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Dude, your answer is much better. I'd give you mod points if I had 'em...(and hadn't posted already...)
Re:Screwed by Laserdisc? No way.
on
The Joys of HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I think he is technically correct. As I understand it, the pits on a Laserdisc are not of a fixed length or interval. So, instead of the pit/no-pit (binary) situation on a DVD and CD, the laser on a Laserdisc player uses the varying lengths and varying spaces between the pits to read off the video and (sometimes) audio signals. (CD-type audio can be encoded too). So yes, technically it is analog (non-discrete values). But it's kind of like they made an LP where the needle was a laser and the LP grooves were sealed under clear plastic -- you could get really high quality that wouldn't degrade with repeated playing (Note I said "kind of" -- it's a very approximate analogy).
Re:Screwed by Laserdisc? No way.
on
The Joys of HDTV
·
· Score: 1
My bad, you are correct. I stand by my exacting technical description of VHS as "crappy".
I had a Laserdisc player for about six years before I switched to DVD, and it was *great*. During all the time others were watching crappy VHS, I had uncompressed digital video and CD-quality sound. I had no problem finding places to rent Laserdiscs. The Laserdiscs I bought were often cheaper than the VHS versions (go figure). My core collection of movies was relatively small, so switching to DVD wasn't that big a deal (and it carried the benefit of Dolby Digital/DTS/DVD Extras). It was also my CD player. Laserdisc was great tech for its time.
So let's say I bought a $500 player and $1000 worth of discs (both those numbers are probably high) -- I got six years of enjoyment for $1500 of sunk costs. Compared to the money I've spent on computers and how quickly they become obsolete, Laserdisc was a bargain.
...if it gets too close to a light bulb will it drive around in circles like insects do? Some Martians are gonna want to have a nighttime barbecue and this thing is gonna keep driving circles around them. You just know they're going to swat it...
This all or nothing, all at once approach won't work.
I agree. Someone needs to outline a program of "Progressive Libertarianism". It's one thing to say "We're at Point X when we should be at Point Y", but what is the proper path (progression) from one to the other? It's one thing to say a building should come down, but what's the proper, safe way to do it?
The Libertarians (I include myself) need to lay out not only which laws/programs/bureaus should be abolished, but in what order. For example, in the 'ideal' world, the individual need not fear corporations, since corporations cannot use force to get their way. The only problem is that right now, via the DMCA, the proposed UCITA, and other laws, the Government acts as a proxy for the corporation. When a corporation uses it's vast legal resources to drag me into court, just going through the legal proceedings is a drain on my resources (a fine, in essence) and an infringement on my liberty. My nonparticipation is not an option -- the Government will see to that.
From where I stand, individuals should be granted their full and unrestricted liberty first. Individual liberty is supposedly the bedrock of Libertarian beliefs, and under the current system individuals are less able to infringe on someone else's liberty by abusing the legal or political system. Groups of people should be freed of Government interference in the reverse order of the power they currently wield. Since Governement always has the guns, it must always be heavily restricted, but other groups of people (corporations, unions, religious groups, etc.) should be given their freedom to associate without regulation as they demonstrate they will not infringe the liberty of others.
On a side note, the other hurdle for Libertarians is properly addressing common property (e.g., the environment), but that's another discussion.
Well, it's never "as simple as that", but again I think there is a distinction. You *entered into* a relationship with your employer, which one assumes had some terms and conditions you knew about when you started. The company is not allowed to set any old set of rules it pleases -- there are anti-discrimination laws, safety and health rules, etc. -- but as regards "free speech" the company can terminate you if it doesn't like what you say. In very particular circumstances there are "Whistleblower" protection laws for workers who reveal misconduct or fraud on Government contracts. As opposed to what you have posted about the UK, there are no national "right to work" laws in the US, and those enacted on a state level concern your right to seek work with other employers (i.e., most "non-compete" clauses in employment contracts are not enforceable).
To get back to our discussion, I'd submit that your relationship with Government begins at birth, and with no consent on your part. Your relationship with your employer was entered into by you as a rational adult. As another poster pointed out, once you have a dispute with your Government they can prevent your moving to somewhere else, something not available to a company (again, except where Government is acting as the company's lackey, which I feel violates our rights).
Amongst all those relationships (Government-Individual, Company-Individual, Individual-Individual), the difference -- the important difference -- is that Government is the only body allowed to use force in any dispute in the relationship *and* you are never allowed to terminate the relationship.
How exactly can an individual censor you? If your friend does not want you to say something to a third party, you can always say it and suffer the consequences to your frienship, possibly including it's termination. You can also choose to terminate the friendship yourself.
The same applies to a company -- if you disagree with your boss you can shoot your mouth off and suffer the consequences, or you can quit and say what you want. Now, with the legal resources available to the company, this relationship can be subject to abuse. UCITA, DMCA and the DeCSS case come to mind, where the Government is using force on behalf of the company, so yes I think these are violations of the First Amendment.
The fact there are *consequences* of your speaking up does not mean you are being censored. If I call all my neighbors Assholes, the fact they won't speak to me or loan me stuff or babysit my kids doesn't mean I'm being censored. Because Government can drag you away or kill you, it requires special restrictions. Without getting into the whole "social contract" thing, freedom does not mean freedom from consequence.
Leaving aside that the two kids in the story are minors, they (via their parents) always have the option of going to a different (public or private) school. Government is the relationship you can never terminate, short of leaving for another part of the world (and assuming they'll let you leave).
Actually, the situation with the M-16 and the AK-47 is somewhat reversed. What impressed me upon first seeing an M-16 round was that the bullet itself is quite small (it's basically a pointy.22) but it's backed up by a BIG powder charge.
The smaller, high-velocity bullet will tumble upon entering the body, with the result that the entry wound for an M-16 is very small while the exit wound is very large. The AK-47 has a larger, slower bullet, which doesn't leave nearly as large an exit wound.
Nominally, the higher velocity M-16 round was designed to be accurate over longer distances, though I don't think they were too disappointed by its damage-causing potential. The M-16's range advantage is a little misleading, since most infantry combat occurs at pretty close range (hey, if you saw them at a distance you would just call in an artillery or airstrike). The AK-47 also is well known for being easy to manufacture and extremely reliable, while the M-16 can be quite finicky.
Of course, I was just an Air Force puke, so if any Grunts or Jarheads want to weigh in, feel free...
I know there aren't all that many DS9 fans, but I always wondered about Odo's love life (e.g., him and Major Kira). I would think that being a shapeshifter would carry certain lovemaking, umm, advantages;)
So I'm assuming the ships will all be translucent and do some twirly Genie effect when they go to warp, and the Trekkies will bitch mercilessly about it...
Slashdot Mirror
Just for comparison, Ebert gave both films 3.5 stars, and in his Sun-Times review about the new film he says
I was born overseas, lived in the Philippines for two years, and have been to some 15 other countries. I enjoyed and found something worthwhile in all of them -- and I wouldn't trade any of them for the US.
But hey AC, don't let me get in the way of your stereotyping 275 million people from virtually every culture and ethnicity on the planet.
Oh, and of course Canadians don't have a desire to move to the US -- they already have largely unfettered access to most of its benefits. Canadians can trade with, travel to, and live and work in the US almost as if they were citizens here. Nobody sees Peter Jennings on the TV and thinks "Hey, why do they have a foreigner hosting the news?" You may hate being thought of as the 51st state, but you derive a hell of a lot of benefit from it -- if any other country plagued us with Bryan Adams *and* Celine Dion, it would be grounds for war. (But feel free to kill all the Baldwin brothers whenever you feel like it.)
My company lists their open source projects here. No missile guidance systems, just stuff like virtual workspaces, and I haven't worked on any of these projects so I can't vouch for their quality/usefulness. But hey, if you're a US taxpayer you paid for them, so have at it.
Aww, who cares? The animals down there already glow in the dark...
As I recall, The Simpsons had a "running start" since it began as short segments on the Tracy Ullman Show. I forget exactly when it was spun off, but it's interesting that it so outlived the show where it started. Are the segments from the Tracy Ullman Show on the Season 1 DVD? That would be mighty cool.
Well then, you need one of these! They don't mention Linux drivers, though...
One thing that occured to me (with the benefit of hindsight, of course): Against a short-bladed knife or a box cutter, wouldn't the seat cushion make for a decent shield? Supposedly it has the straps you can slip your arms through (I've never pulled one up myself). The blade, whether thrusting or slashing, might get bogged down in the foam. Cuts to the forearm wouldn't go as deep, and it's harder to locate behind the cushion. Slip the seat cushion over one arm, grab an oxygen bottle or fire extinguisher with the other, and you've got a much more even fight.
Like I said, easy to come up with after the fact, but something to chew on...
How the fuck did this idiocy get modded up to +5?
Totally atheist ideoligies have killed at least as many people in the last century as any religious fanatic.
Soviet Pogroms: 20 million
Khmer Rouge: 2 million
Chinese Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution: ?? million
Moron. Read the First Amendment. People can worship or not worship whatever deity, life-force, or shrub they want to. We have laws in this country to to govern what people can do *to* each other. You want to "rehabilitate" those who have a religious bent? Go fuck yourself.
Well then, you had best not read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Boy will you be in for a shock...
Yeah, the Bill of Rights is a real bitch that way. It means defending the rights of people you don't necessarily like. Life would be so much simpler if Amendments 1-10 just added "...except for people who really get on our nerves."
Yeah, I assume it's a parody of the warnings they would put on early CDs of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. Some record labels would put them on almost all their classical CDs.
This has already happened. Some folks in New London, CT, are getting their houses seized just so Pfizer can have bigger digs. The town government justifies the seizure as "public use" because they'll get more tax revenue out of Pfizer than Grandma. Great rationale, huh? Since they define revenue generation as a public use, it basically justifies any whoring of themselves they can come up with. I seem to recall another town in New York state doing the same for a shopping center.
Dude, your answer is much better. I'd give you mod points if I had 'em...(and hadn't posted already...)
Actually, I think he is technically correct. As I understand it, the pits on a Laserdisc are not of a fixed length or interval. So, instead of the pit/no-pit (binary) situation on a DVD and CD, the laser on a Laserdisc player uses the varying lengths and varying spaces between the pits to read off the video and (sometimes) audio signals. (CD-type audio can be encoded too). So yes, technically it is analog (non-discrete values). But it's kind of like they made an LP where the needle was a laser and the LP grooves were sealed under clear plastic -- you could get really high quality that wouldn't degrade with repeated playing (Note I said "kind of" -- it's a very approximate analogy).
My bad, you are correct. I stand by my exacting technical description of VHS as "crappy".
I had a Laserdisc player for about six years before I switched to DVD, and it was *great*. During all the time others were watching crappy VHS, I had uncompressed digital video and CD-quality sound. I had no problem finding places to rent Laserdiscs. The Laserdiscs I bought were often cheaper than the VHS versions (go figure). My core collection of movies was relatively small, so switching to DVD wasn't that big a deal (and it carried the benefit of Dolby Digital/DTS/DVD Extras). It was also my CD player. Laserdisc was great tech for its time.
So let's say I bought a $500 player and $1000 worth of discs (both those numbers are probably high) -- I got six years of enjoyment for $1500 of sunk costs. Compared to the money I've spent on computers and how quickly they become obsolete, Laserdisc was a bargain.
...if it gets too close to a light bulb will it drive around in circles like insects do? Some Martians are gonna want to have a nighttime barbecue and this thing is gonna keep driving circles around them. You just know they're going to swat it...
You might want to check out this interview with Dick Cheney on CNN.
I agree. Someone needs to outline a program of "Progressive Libertarianism". It's one thing to say "We're at Point X when we should be at Point Y", but what is the proper path (progression) from one to the other? It's one thing to say a building should come down, but what's the proper, safe way to do it?
The Libertarians (I include myself) need to lay out not only which laws/programs/bureaus should be abolished, but in what order. For example, in the 'ideal' world, the individual need not fear corporations, since corporations cannot use force to get their way. The only problem is that right now, via the DMCA, the proposed UCITA, and other laws, the Government acts as a proxy for the corporation. When a corporation uses it's vast legal resources to drag me into court, just going through the legal proceedings is a drain on my resources (a fine, in essence) and an infringement on my liberty. My nonparticipation is not an option -- the Government will see to that.
From where I stand, individuals should be granted their full and unrestricted liberty first. Individual liberty is supposedly the bedrock of Libertarian beliefs, and under the current system individuals are less able to infringe on someone else's liberty by abusing the legal or political system. Groups of people should be freed of Government interference in the reverse order of the power they currently wield. Since Governement always has the guns, it must always be heavily restricted, but other groups of people (corporations, unions, religious groups, etc.) should be given their freedom to associate without regulation as they demonstrate they will not infringe the liberty of others.
On a side note, the other hurdle for Libertarians is properly addressing common property (e.g., the environment), but that's another discussion.
Well, it's never "as simple as that", but again I think there is a distinction. You *entered into* a relationship with your employer, which one assumes had some terms and conditions you knew about when you started. The company is not allowed to set any old set of rules it pleases -- there are anti-discrimination laws, safety and health rules, etc. -- but as regards "free speech" the company can terminate you if it doesn't like what you say. In very particular circumstances there are "Whistleblower" protection laws for workers who reveal misconduct or fraud on Government contracts. As opposed to what you have posted about the UK, there are no national "right to work" laws in the US, and those enacted on a state level concern your right to seek work with other employers (i.e., most "non-compete" clauses in employment contracts are not enforceable).
To get back to our discussion, I'd submit that your relationship with Government begins at birth, and with no consent on your part. Your relationship with your employer was entered into by you as a rational adult. As another poster pointed out, once you have a dispute with your Government they can prevent your moving to somewhere else, something not available to a company (again, except where Government is acting as the company's lackey, which I feel violates our rights).
Amongst all those relationships (Government-Individual, Company-Individual, Individual-Individual), the difference -- the important difference -- is that Government is the only body allowed to use force in any dispute in the relationship *and* you are never allowed to terminate the relationship.
How exactly can an individual censor you? If your friend does not want you to say something to a third party, you can always say it and suffer the consequences to your frienship, possibly including it's termination. You can also choose to terminate the friendship yourself.
The same applies to a company -- if you disagree with your boss you can shoot your mouth off and suffer the consequences, or you can quit and say what you want. Now, with the legal resources available to the company, this relationship can be subject to abuse. UCITA, DMCA and the DeCSS case come to mind, where the Government is using force on behalf of the company, so yes I think these are violations of the First Amendment.
The fact there are *consequences* of your speaking up does not mean you are being censored. If I call all my neighbors Assholes, the fact they won't speak to me or loan me stuff or babysit my kids doesn't mean I'm being censored. Because Government can drag you away or kill you, it requires special restrictions. Without getting into the whole "social contract" thing, freedom does not mean freedom from consequence.
Leaving aside that the two kids in the story are minors, they (via their parents) always have the option of going to a different (public or private) school. Government is the relationship you can never terminate, short of leaving for another part of the world (and assuming they'll let you leave).
Actually, the situation with the M-16 and the AK-47 is somewhat reversed. What impressed me upon first seeing an M-16 round was that the bullet itself is quite small (it's basically a pointy .22) but it's backed up by a BIG powder charge.
The smaller, high-velocity bullet will tumble upon entering the body, with the result that the entry wound for an M-16 is very small while the exit wound is very large. The AK-47 has a larger, slower bullet, which doesn't leave nearly as large an exit wound.
Nominally, the higher velocity M-16 round was designed to be accurate over longer distances, though I don't think they were too disappointed by its damage-causing potential. The M-16's range advantage is a little misleading, since most infantry combat occurs at pretty close range (hey, if you saw them at a distance you would just call in an artillery or airstrike). The AK-47 also is well known for being easy to manufacture and extremely reliable, while the M-16 can be quite finicky.
Of course, I was just an Air Force puke, so if any Grunts or Jarheads want to weigh in, feel free...
I know there aren't all that many DS9 fans, but I always wondered about Odo's love life (e.g., him and Major Kira). I would think that being a shapeshifter would carry certain lovemaking, umm, advantages ;)
So I'm assuming the ships will all be translucent and do some twirly Genie effect when they go to warp, and the Trekkies will bitch mercilessly about it...
...he could call it the Bad MuthaCluster.
(insert rimshot here)