Homemade spot-welder is cool, but I think the truly epic way of destroying a hard drive must involve the Flaming Bacon Lance of Death: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9dskxN10N0
I think giving George Lucas access to anything beyond pre-production brain-storming was a bad idea. The Empire Strikes Back was absolutely brilliant and considered by many to be best of the original trilogy. It was directed by Irvin Kershner and written by Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett. It packed alot of important story in good and tight without over-loading the film and what's more it had romantic scenes that you could watch without cringing. Giving Lucas anything more than executive producer has proven to be the worst thing that could possibly happen to both the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises.
"If all you noticed was some explosions and robots, you missed out on a fantastic movie."
If all you noticed was some explosions and robots, you've got some sort of classifiable mental defect (or you're Michael Bay... not that those categories are mutually exclusive). The movie's themes were so viciously beaten over the viewer's head most people left with blood coming out of their ears.
By the way, I actually thought the movie was pretty good. The effects, structure, story-telling style, direction and performances were nothing short of brilliant. What killed total enjoyment of it for me was the feeling that somebody was standing over me the whole time yelling, "We think they're monsters, but we treat them horribly, it's like apartheid was, see? And the PMCs are unethical, because you can't trust a soldier who fights just for money. See?!? We're the real monsters, not the prawns! Get it? GET IT?!?"
Seriously, though, I find it hard to come down on either side of this argument. On the one hand, I think that with the kind of power they wield and the protections they benefit from, police should be closely monitored. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that someone who enforces the law for a living be able to demonstrate that they live within it and apply it honestly and impartially when they do. This woman posted this website in what seems to be the most petty way possible for the most petty motivations possible. On the other hand, I have to wonder what kind of effect this has on the cops whose information was posted. I'm not a psychologist, but if I knew that somebody was posting my personal information and pictures and such online, I'd get kinda paranoid and I might not behave in the most rational manner possible. Multiply that with the kind of concerns and fears police face every day, and that's a recipe for police who might otherwise be responsible, honest cops shooting first and asking questions later. A sense of self-preservation doesn't cease to exist just because you carry a gun or wear a kevlar vest.
Their faith leads them to define "reality" in a different way than you or I would. To them reality is not limited to just what can be seen, heard, felt, tasted and proven in by the scientific method. To them there is a Heavan and a Hell and the residents of those places are invisible participants in this place. That's their reality.
I think part of it also has to do with the comforting effect faith can have. If you can say "it's God's plan" and beleive it, you never have to worry because somebody else is watching out for you and consequently, nothing is ever your fault.
"Granted, God could have created fossils and made the earth in such a way that C-14 dating (and other more accurate methods) give a false result, you know, to test our faith or somesuch. But why go there? Why reach so badly, so desperately for a way to reject logic?"
You answered your own question. If they beleive it's a test of faith, it doesn't matter what logic dictates or what evidence indicates. Faith is just that, beleif in the absence of evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence. If you beleive your faith is being tested, you're only going to reject evidence more the more it piles up.
"Let me get this straight - you place "influencing of American Idol voting" on par with "warrantless surveillance"?"
Anyone who puts the two on the same level is a twit, but to be fair, both do demonstrate a willingness of the company to ignore the public good or to overrule public opinion at a whim. One is clearly worse, but neither are the kind of thing I want from a company I trust with my communications.
I hate to come down on the side of the TSA, but there is a good reason you should keep toy guns in checked baggage. A real gun and a toy gun look the same on an x-ray machine and whoever's responsible for security has to check it out, even though it's harmless. It's a hassle and a time-waster for all involved that could easily be avoided.
I like the bit about identifying "profit-threatening" behavior. How long before telcos use this to identify your friends and come up with cheap excuses why you can't choose those numbers for the "circle of friends" free calls so many of them offer. Not that talk-time matters much, most people that I know that are my age (22) use their phones for text messages more than for calling anyway. It's been at least two years since I used my phone to call more than I did to text. Not that I think it would require too much tweaking to analyze text message traffic.
I just did a little experiment. I wrote down, as best as I could remember (I'm 22, learned cursive at 7 and haven't used it regularly since), the cursive alphabet in upper and lower case, then checked them against the correct way of doing things online. Of a possible 52, I was able to remember and write 36 correctly. The funny part is that some of the letters I got wrong are ones I use all the time in my signature.
"Now and then I use cursive for a letter because it still is the most personal way to write"
What makes one form of writing more personal than another if you're saying the same thing in either form? I would think the most personal way to write is the way you're most comfortable (and consequently most legible) writing.
"I have absolutely no problem reading neat cursive"
Emphasis mine because "neat" is the magic word. I took a lot of writing classes in college* that required me to read over and give feed-back to people on things they'd just hand-written in class. With cursive, I had about a fifty-fifty chance of being able to read it quickly and easily. The kicker, though, is that my professors were the worst offenders. The three professors I had most frequently for writing classes, who gave me the most hand-written feedback on my work had completely illegible cursive writing. I had to go to their offices everytime I got a paper back and ask them what they meant, because I had no chance of reading it myself, and these guys were in their fifties and sixties. This suggests to me that the "death" of cursive and legible writing in general is in the person, not the society. I never made much effort to learn to write well because I had the computer. My handwriting was so sloppy that one time in fifth grade, one of my teachers ran me through the ringer for stealing someone else's work. Not because I had, but because I had taken so much time and put so much effort into writing it legibly that it was so far from my normal handwriting, and the teacher refused to beleive it was mine.
*I'm 22 and just graduated, so me and the peers I'm talking about just past the "cut-off" age the article talks about, we all learned cursive, but it stopped being "mandatory" very soon after.
Slashdot Mirror
Homemade spot-welder is cool, but I think the truly epic way of destroying a hard drive must involve the Flaming Bacon Lance of Death: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9dskxN10N0
As a guy who just left the Port Authority Bus Terminal at 11:32 on a bus scheduled to leave at 11:15, I gotta agree.
I think giving George Lucas access to anything beyond pre-production brain-storming was a bad idea. The Empire Strikes Back was absolutely brilliant and considered by many to be best of the original trilogy. It was directed by Irvin Kershner and written by Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett. It packed alot of important story in good and tight without over-loading the film and what's more it had romantic scenes that you could watch without cringing. Giving Lucas anything more than executive producer has proven to be the worst thing that could possibly happen to both the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises.
"If all you noticed was some explosions and robots, you missed out on a fantastic movie."
If all you noticed was some explosions and robots, you've got some sort of classifiable mental defect (or you're Michael Bay... not that those categories are mutually exclusive). The movie's themes were so viciously beaten over the viewer's head most people left with blood coming out of their ears.
By the way, I actually thought the movie was pretty good. The effects, structure, story-telling style, direction and performances were nothing short of brilliant. What killed total enjoyment of it for me was the feeling that somebody was standing over me the whole time yelling, "We think they're monsters, but we treat them horribly, it's like apartheid was, see? And the PMCs are unethical, because you can't trust a soldier who fights just for money. See?!? We're the real monsters, not the prawns! Get it? GET IT?!?"
"how Earth reacts"
Simple! They call in a Blade Runner to catch the Sam that escaped.
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/250/
She watches the watchmen.
Seriously, though, I find it hard to come down on either side of this argument. On the one hand, I think that with the kind of power they wield and the protections they benefit from, police should be closely monitored. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that someone who enforces the law for a living be able to demonstrate that they live within it and apply it honestly and impartially when they do. This woman posted this website in what seems to be the most petty way possible for the most petty motivations possible. On the other hand, I have to wonder what kind of effect this has on the cops whose information was posted. I'm not a psychologist, but if I knew that somebody was posting my personal information and pictures and such online, I'd get kinda paranoid and I might not behave in the most rational manner possible. Multiply that with the kind of concerns and fears police face every day, and that's a recipe for police who might otherwise be responsible, honest cops shooting first and asking questions later. A sense of self-preservation doesn't cease to exist just because you carry a gun or wear a kevlar vest.
Are you telling me Ottumwa, Iowa isn't proud enough that it's the hometown of Walter "Radar" O'Reilly? That's not enough for them?
Their faith leads them to define "reality" in a different way than you or I would. To them reality is not limited to just what can be seen, heard, felt, tasted and proven in by the scientific method. To them there is a Heavan and a Hell and the residents of those places are invisible participants in this place. That's their reality.
I think part of it also has to do with the comforting effect faith can have. If you can say "it's God's plan" and beleive it, you never have to worry because somebody else is watching out for you and consequently, nothing is ever your fault.
"Granted, God could have created fossils and made the earth in such a way that C-14 dating (and other more accurate methods) give a false result, you know, to test our faith or somesuch. But why go there? Why reach so badly, so desperately for a way to reject logic?"
You answered your own question. If they beleive it's a test of faith, it doesn't matter what logic dictates or what evidence indicates. Faith is just that, beleif in the absence of evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence. If you beleive your faith is being tested, you're only going to reject evidence more the more it piles up.
Please don't give them any ideas.
"Let me get this straight - you place "influencing of American Idol voting" on par with "warrantless surveillance"?"
Anyone who puts the two on the same level is a twit, but to be fair, both do demonstrate a willingness of the company to ignore the public good or to overrule public opinion at a whim. One is clearly worse, but neither are the kind of thing I want from a company I trust with my communications.
Jimmy Hoffa?!?
I hate to come down on the side of the TSA, but there is a good reason you should keep toy guns in checked baggage. A real gun and a toy gun look the same on an x-ray machine and whoever's responsible for security has to check it out, even though it's harmless. It's a hassle and a time-waster for all involved that could easily be avoided.
That's exactly what I want, a washing machine that complains when I mix whites and colors.
Igor: Abby something...
Dr. Frankenstein: Abby what?
Igor: Normal. Abby Normal.
I like the bit about identifying "profit-threatening" behavior. How long before telcos use this to identify your friends and come up with cheap excuses why you can't choose those numbers for the "circle of friends" free calls so many of them offer. Not that talk-time matters much, most people that I know that are my age (22) use their phones for text messages more than for calling anyway. It's been at least two years since I used my phone to call more than I did to text. Not that I think it would require too much tweaking to analyze text message traffic.
I just did a little experiment. I wrote down, as best as I could remember (I'm 22, learned cursive at 7 and haven't used it regularly since), the cursive alphabet in upper and lower case, then checked them against the correct way of doing things online. Of a possible 52, I was able to remember and write 36 correctly. The funny part is that some of the letters I got wrong are ones I use all the time in my signature.
"Now and then I use cursive for a letter because it still is the most personal way to write"
What makes one form of writing more personal than another if you're saying the same thing in either form? I would think the most personal way to write is the way you're most comfortable (and consequently most legible) writing.
"I have absolutely no problem reading neat cursive"
Emphasis mine because "neat" is the magic word. I took a lot of writing classes in college* that required me to read over and give feed-back to people on things they'd just hand-written in class. With cursive, I had about a fifty-fifty chance of being able to read it quickly and easily. The kicker, though, is that my professors were the worst offenders. The three professors I had most frequently for writing classes, who gave me the most hand-written feedback on my work had completely illegible cursive writing. I had to go to their offices everytime I got a paper back and ask them what they meant, because I had no chance of reading it myself, and these guys were in their fifties and sixties. This suggests to me that the "death" of cursive and legible writing in general is in the person, not the society. I never made much effort to learn to write well because I had the computer. My handwriting was so sloppy that one time in fifth grade, one of my teachers ran me through the ringer for stealing someone else's work. Not because I had, but because I had taken so much time and put so much effort into writing it legibly that it was so far from my normal handwriting, and the teacher refused to beleive it was mine.
*I'm 22 and just graduated, so me and the peers I'm talking about just past the "cut-off" age the article talks about, we all learned cursive, but it stopped being "mandatory" very soon after.
Don't know where, don't know when, but I know we'll meet again some sunny day...
As in all mainstream Sam Raimi movies, Bruce Campbell will have a breif cameo. He's rumored to be playing Leeroy Jenkins.
But at least they're not being made by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
But also without the benefits.
Don't be so quick to trust snopes... http://xkcd.com/250/