Myst felt a lot like cocaine to me. . . lots of work to get it, and you're all excited, but the climax. . . meh.
Long run for a short slide. After spending the hours to beat it, the ending pissed me off to no end. "Now you may explore the world to your heart's content! P.S. we reset all the annoying puzzles, do them again, bitch!"
Just another form of sensationalism for the media to latch onto. Nothing new, really. Check out the book The Culture of Fear for a better treatment than my half assed drunken post.
First off, the joke is very much like jazz - there's a beginning and an end, but the middle (the journey) is all up to the individual performer. So there's a piece of improvisation that is present that gives it the same appeal of really good stand-up. . . the fact that you're in the NOW, and this moment won't be repeated.
The backstory of the joke is fascinating as well . . . it was Johnny Carson's favorite joke, and he corresponded regularly w/Penn Jillette during the making of the movie, up until his death. That's neither here nor there in the argument to see the movie, I suppose, but it struck me as very interesting.
I dunno. . . I went to see it with a good friend of mine (who isn't/wasn't in the entertainment world) and he thought it was great as well.
Sure, there are quite a few variations that are similar, and at times you feel like their running a treadmill, but the moments of true originality are there that make it magical.
Gilbert Gottfried's piece is probably the most disturbing thing I've ever heard in my life, and (as I stated above) the mime is just so fucking funny it's ridiculous. I nearly shit my pants laughing so hard.
And it's nice to see comics like Doug Stanhope and Sara Silverman on the screen. . . both true talents that have been wasted on the few vehicles they've been given to work with on television.
That was pisser, and worth the price IMO.
I think ppl in the entertainment industry (I did stand up comedy for a few years) do find it more entertaining than the average Joe.
If you do it right, you could probably avoid paying anything for a house sitter, particularly in the summer!
College student coming home for summer break, offer a free place to live (but they have to pay for food) in return for watching the place over the summer.
Lord knows I would have jumped at it; my parents gave me a 10 PM curfew when I came home after my first year of college. Yes, you read that right - 10 PM. Assholes.
There's a few of these floating around; you don't need to log out/in, just find another node and mine/gather it.
The gist of why is it seems some nodes/herbs spawn before they should and it borks your gather attempt. (a couple of the nodes in the Barrens Oases had these problems 6 months ago)
P.S. it's pretty consistent on which ones are borked this way - the peacebloom right outside XR is notorious for this bug.
Any time you are going to sign a contract, there should be a blinking light in your head that goes off to say "if I don't understand the terms well, I should have a lawyer look at it".
If you don't, that's your bed you laid in. I speak from experience, the last contract I signed gave me the high hard one from April of this year until last week, and it was the most miserable contract I've ever worked on.
It wasn't the company's fault for the restrictive contract (though they did guarantee no follow-on work nor post-implementation support from me - no contract specifications for it and I'm unwilling to do any more business with the firm) it was my fault for not fully understanding the implications of the terms. Why? I didn't have a lawyer look at it.
The bottom line is this - if you're going to sign your name to a legally binding contract of ANY sort, it's in your best interests to have a lawyer look at it and possibly redraft it.
A grand total of $1000 tops can prevent a sticky situation where you lose $100,000 of an annual salary because you didn't read the terms correctly.
Finally, something that nobody's really looking at that hard, is how often companies go after individuals for violating non-competes. It's simply not that often. If you're making under $80,000 a year, I'd wager a lot of money that your career moves are not overly limited by a non-compete. You're not worth it to the employer, in terms of litigation. Unless, of course, they are protecting their interests. Say you worked on a specific set of algorithms that are peachy keen then went to your company's direct competitor to finish the job. Guess what? That's the whole stinking point of the non-compete, so naturally they'll go after you.
But under ordinary circumstances it's not that bad - look to most consulting firms in America. Most of the consulting firms have their employees sign non-competes preventing them from taking work at a client. However, 95% of the time the consulting firm, when requested by the employee, will gladly let them go without a contest.
Non-competes tend to be broad, but tend to be enforced only on the edges, where there is a true concern by the company of direct competition.
I don't think I've been involved with a contract in the last 5 years that hasn't involved an NDA and a non-compete clause of some sort.
I don't know how I feel about them . . . I'm an independent contractor so I know in my line of work it tends to be quite the norm - the companies I develop for want assurance that I won't purloin trade secrets or use inside information about their financial systems (which I'm in rather extensively) against them with a competitor.
Additionally, Non-Compete is critical for security to the firm I'm contracted with, usually a middle-man consulting firm. Without a Non-compete, less scrupulous contractors could negotiate a deal with the client "on the ground", get a better rate for both parties, and cut the middle man out. Not exactly fair, as it's usually the middle man who knows about the requirement and finds the contractor. (And probably stakes their own reputation on trusting my ability to implement the correct solution)
It's not serfdom, it's best practices for all involved.
The music industry is stagnating right now. MTV has been useless for several years now, choosing to focus on reality television rather than music videos or innovative sound. Mom and pop radio stations have been bought out by the one or two monopolies left in broadcasting.
The same thing has been said about music since at least the days of Elvis, and I'm guessing there have been discussions like this since there were room for musicians and critics.
Erm. . . I had a revelation halfway through the post. You're referring to the industry not music itself.
I agree, mostly. The monolithic companies that control most of the music industry are pretty much what you'd expect from a monolith - controlled by inertia, and slow to react.
The key difference is found where music is really progressing - not in the Clear Channel approved acts but the other stuff that gets no radio play. Look to Ani DiFranco for an example of an artist who is 100% independent. Look to Eighteenth Street Lounge recordings for a small label with huge distribution, and tons of radio play worldwide. (not so much in the US, due to payola and the like).
So I guess we agree. Traditional model - bad and failing. New models - good.
Any reference texts with this sort of stuff would be excellent.
A well thought out post, and I agree with Aeternal's analsysis . . . this is very true with, say, bacterium or insects (with a massive reproduction rate allowing a huge amount of "tests") but when you're getting to larger life forms, where the amount of offspring dramatically lowers, there aren't as many tests that are performed in one species, correct?
And loud voices have a tendency to attempt to frame the debate in their terms. Additionally, most extremists (on any issue) tend to be very polarizing and dualistic - with us/against us type of attitudes.
This tends to push the moderates to one side or the other; normally it's the side that's less noisy and idiotic.
I don't think it's ever a matter of weaker arguments, but what the arguments are trying to accomplish - a moderate's argument will normally be based on rational thought and logical progression to reach a conclusion that attempts to solve the whole problem. That's why they're moderates; they look at all the merits of a case and decide upon their position. Extremists normally argue poorly - emotionally based arguments that are designed to trigger response, not invoke thought.
In studies, "average" was found attractive/beautiful but the highest rated specimens were actually rather distorted from average; larger eyes, higher cheekbones, asymmetry in odd places.
Supermodels and the like have quite different facial structures from average.
You're right about that silly Constitution thing, but as we all know, any document written less than 1800 years ago should not be considered a text worth following. This "Constitution" you speak of isn't even 250 years old!
States rights wasn't about red tape. States rights was a fundamental concept to the framers of the constitution, hence the 10th Amendment reserving all powers not explicitly enumerated as the states'.
This is different from efficiency. . . this is about the liberation from a monolithic government (England) and the safeguards to prevent such a power from controlling too much in America.
To claim it's a an efficiency enhancer cheapens the original intent and purpose.
After all, the Republican party prevented the secession of the South in the 1860s, which was ultimately a battle about states rights and the sovreignity of the state.
Slavery was a convenient way to frame the debate on a moral standing (Iraqi Freedom anyone?) but the true issue was never slavery.
the mirror was the Mirror of Erised (desire) and didn't express the future. . . merely what you wished. Personally I hope Harry dies. That would be hilarious. You can't kill Hermione until the actress playing her is 18 and has found other roles, preferrably in some sort of pr0n.
Slashdot Mirror
We've always known the answer was an egg. Reptiles and whatnot.
very funny
He did say bush. *whistles innocently*
Myst felt a lot like cocaine to me. . . lots of work to get it, and you're all excited, but the climax. . . meh.
Long run for a short slide. After spending the hours to beat it, the ending pissed me off to no end. "Now you may explore the world to your heart's content! P.S. we reset all the annoying puzzles, do them again, bitch!"
Just another form of sensationalism for the media to latch onto. Nothing new, really. Check out the book The Culture of Fear for a better treatment than my half assed drunken post.
The backstory of the joke is fascinating as well . . . it was Johnny Carson's favorite joke, and he corresponded regularly w/Penn Jillette during the making of the movie, up until his death. That's neither here nor there in the argument to see the movie, I suppose, but it struck me as very interesting.
I dunno. . . I went to see it with a good friend of mine (who isn't/wasn't in the entertainment world) and he thought it was great as well.
Sure, there are quite a few variations that are similar, and at times you feel like their running a treadmill, but the moments of true originality are there that make it magical.
Gilbert Gottfried's piece is probably the most disturbing thing I've ever heard in my life, and (as I stated above) the mime is just so fucking funny it's ridiculous. I nearly shit my pants laughing so hard.
And it's nice to see comics like Doug Stanhope and Sara Silverman on the screen. . . both true talents that have been wasted on the few vehicles they've been given to work with on television.
That was pisser, and worth the price IMO.
I think ppl in the entertainment industry (I did stand up comedy for a few years) do find it more entertaining than the average Joe.
College student coming home for summer break, offer a free place to live (but they have to pay for food) in return for watching the place over the summer.
Lord knows I would have jumped at it; my parents gave me a 10 PM curfew when I came home after my first year of college. Yes, you read that right - 10 PM. Assholes.
The gist of why is it seems some nodes/herbs spawn before they should and it borks your gather attempt. (a couple of the nodes in the Barrens Oases had these problems 6 months ago)
P.S. it's pretty consistent on which ones are borked this way - the peacebloom right outside XR is notorious for this bug.
Documentaries have always been biased.
Like cold chicken.
If you don't, that's your bed you laid in. I speak from experience, the last contract I signed gave me the high hard one from April of this year until last week, and it was the most miserable contract I've ever worked on.
It wasn't the company's fault for the restrictive contract (though they did guarantee no follow-on work nor post-implementation support from me - no contract specifications for it and I'm unwilling to do any more business with the firm) it was my fault for not fully understanding the implications of the terms. Why? I didn't have a lawyer look at it.
The bottom line is this - if you're going to sign your name to a legally binding contract of ANY sort, it's in your best interests to have a lawyer look at it and possibly redraft it. A grand total of $1000 tops can prevent a sticky situation where you lose $100,000 of an annual salary because you didn't read the terms correctly.
Finally, something that nobody's really looking at that hard, is how often companies go after individuals for violating non-competes. It's simply not that often. If you're making under $80,000 a year, I'd wager a lot of money that your career moves are not overly limited by a non-compete. You're not worth it to the employer, in terms of litigation. Unless, of course, they are protecting their interests. Say you worked on a specific set of algorithms that are peachy keen then went to your company's direct competitor to finish the job. Guess what? That's the whole stinking point of the non-compete, so naturally they'll go after you.
But under ordinary circumstances it's not that bad - look to most consulting firms in America. Most of the consulting firms have their employees sign non-competes preventing them from taking work at a client. However, 95% of the time the consulting firm, when requested by the employee, will gladly let them go without a contest.
Non-competes tend to be broad, but tend to be enforced only on the edges, where there is a true concern by the company of direct competition.
I don't know how I feel about them . . . I'm an independent contractor so I know in my line of work it tends to be quite the norm - the companies I develop for want assurance that I won't purloin trade secrets or use inside information about their financial systems (which I'm in rather extensively) against them with a competitor.
Additionally, Non-Compete is critical for security to the firm I'm contracted with, usually a middle-man consulting firm. Without a Non-compete, less scrupulous contractors could negotiate a deal with the client "on the ground", get a better rate for both parties, and cut the middle man out. Not exactly fair, as it's usually the middle man who knows about the requirement and finds the contractor. (And probably stakes their own reputation on trusting my ability to implement the correct solution)
It's not serfdom, it's best practices for all involved.
The same thing has been said about music since at least the days of Elvis, and I'm guessing there have been discussions like this since there were room for musicians and critics.
Erm. . . I had a revelation halfway through the post. You're referring to the industry not music itself.
I agree, mostly. The monolithic companies that control most of the music industry are pretty much what you'd expect from a monolith - controlled by inertia, and slow to react.
The key difference is found where music is really progressing - not in the Clear Channel approved acts but the other stuff that gets no radio play. Look to Ani DiFranco for an example of an artist who is 100% independent. Look to Eighteenth Street Lounge recordings for a small label with huge distribution, and tons of radio play worldwide. (not so much in the US, due to payola and the like).
So I guess we agree. Traditional model - bad and failing. New models - good.
(totally plagiarized from some comedian)
So if you were ever worried your vote didn't count, TV's the place to worry. That, and government. ;)
I know people who think exactly like you, and a sense of humor is the one thing I wouldn't credit them with. . . ;)
Anyone got directions to Sabina? ;)
A well thought out post, and I agree with Aeternal's analsysis . . . this is very true with, say, bacterium or insects (with a massive reproduction rate allowing a huge amount of "tests") but when you're getting to larger life forms, where the amount of offspring dramatically lowers, there aren't as many tests that are performed in one species, correct?
And loud voices have a tendency to attempt to frame the debate in their terms. Additionally, most extremists (on any issue) tend to be very polarizing and dualistic - with us/against us type of attitudes.
This tends to push the moderates to one side or the other; normally it's the side that's less noisy and idiotic.
I don't think it's ever a matter of weaker arguments, but what the arguments are trying to accomplish - a moderate's argument will normally be based on rational thought and logical progression to reach a conclusion that attempts to solve the whole problem. That's why they're moderates; they look at all the merits of a case and decide upon their position. Extremists normally argue poorly - emotionally based arguments that are designed to trigger response, not invoke thought.
Supermodels and the like have quite different facial structures from average.
You're right about that silly Constitution thing, but as we all know, any document written less than 1800 years ago should not be considered a text worth following. This "Constitution" you speak of isn't even 250 years old!
This is different from efficiency. . . this is about the liberation from a monolithic government (England) and the safeguards to prevent such a power from controlling too much in America.
To claim it's a an efficiency enhancer cheapens the original intent and purpose.
Slavery was a convenient way to frame the debate on a moral standing (Iraqi Freedom anyone?) but the true issue was never slavery.
the mirror was the Mirror of Erised (desire) and didn't express the future. . . merely what you wished. Personally I hope Harry dies. That would be hilarious. You can't kill Hermione until the actress playing her is 18 and has found other roles, preferrably in some sort of pr0n.