All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what has Microsoft ever done for us?
Unfortunately, this would lead to children who can play through Zelda is one sitting, but cannot spell their names. Not to mention a nation full of staggeringly un-well-rounded students who are masters of 2 or 3 things, but know next to nothing about the others.
If we let kids choose to learn only what they want to learn, how will many of them gain any exposure to anything that might be initially uninteresting, but ultimately satisfying? I had 5 horrible history teachers that made me hate the idea of reading about the past until one teacher in late high school completely changed my mind. But I guess I should not have had to learn it, eh?
Engaging teachers can teach students to learn to love things that they might not have a natural, out-of-the-gate interest in. And the students will then seek out new things to learn about, regardless of their initial views, breeding open-mindedness in enriching themselves.
I'd like to add that the type A people above can accomplish things by learning the step by step process, but they do not really "learn" things by doing this until things finally click and they actually begin to understand the underlying behavior behind the system that the type B people catch onto early on. They have to do the process over and over and it's not until they start to think about WHY what they are doing works that they really start to learn anything.
I'd also add another category of person (C): the apathetic and lazy who just don't want to learn anything unless forced to do so, even if you throw it in their faces.
they either ignore it or just refuse to listen because they "aren't a hacker and don't know this computer stuff".
It's this willful ignorance that really gets to me. I can understand ignorance -- no one is born knowing how to maintain their computers. But there is an enormous segment out there who a) want all of the advantages of having a working computer in their homes and b) either are not willing or cannot be bothered to even attempt to learn how to take care of their computer, even if they have someone around who is willing to help them learn it.
The "oh, I don't have time for that stuff, it's too hard" mentality is everywhere.
If you want to go for a drive, you have to learn how to operate a car. Laziness, fear, or just plain apathy are what frosts my shorts about this whole thing.
Then let them adapt... Right now we are being inundated with ads of all kinds in all mediums. You literally cannot turn your head without being exposed to an ad for something, whether on a billboard, radio, tv, the net, city bus, your friend's t-shirt, etc. etc.
Some of these methods deserve to be kicked to the curb, like the newest trends of advertising inside of video games that I've paid to play, and before movies that I've paid to see.
According to doubleclick's logic, if I turn my head away from a billboard, I'm stealing money from the advertisers' pockets, with is utter BS. Cutting out ads in the online service that I pay for each month is my right. If these companies cannot make a buck any other way, then let them charge for their crappy content and see how much revenue they make. I'll either decide that the value of their service is worth the headache of the ads, or I won't, but it's my decision to make and mine alone. I may be taking away a potential (very lower percentage) sale from the advertiser, but it's the utter uselessness of the medium they are using that is to blame if the company loses money. Give me useful ads that make me aware of things that pertain specifically to me that I might actually want to buy, and I'll buy the products.
The advertisers should be forced to evolve in the ways they get their messages out, and the users should be able to choose the eradication of certain methods that they find annoying without interference. They use this same "we've lost a potential sale" logic to justify DRM, as well as the elimination of the commericial-skipping buttons from DVRs, when the fact is that the consumers hold the power to determine whether to listen to ads or not, just as they hold the power to buy or not to buy. It's corporate BS.
Make these companies cater to us, not the other way around. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more!
Exactly. Imagine if we had never dropped the bombs on Japan. There would never have been a demonstration of how horrible and devastating these weapons could be in a real war -- they would have been unproven, theoretical weapons that had never been demonstrated effective in wartime use. We may not have been as hesitant to use them in the later Cold War as we were. Both the Soviets and the Americans were well aware of the bombs' horrors and effectiveness, and hence, less inclined to actually use them over the next 50 years.
I like to think that the horrors of the bombs' effects on Japan in the 40s helped to prevent an even greater catastrophe in later year. We were close enough to pushing "the button" on the Soviets as it was, without having the "let's see if they really work" mentality and lack of understanding of the truly awful devastation they leave behind. And considering that their effectiveness increased a hundredfold as the technology developed, I'm saddened for the Japanese, but grateful that we did not save the "first time" for later on.
I guess this is only "from a certain point of view", to quote a Jedi. Any philosophy with 2 polar opposites (good/evil, order/chaos, dark/light, fascism/communism, democrat/republican [sorry:)]) works that way. A member of one extreme will claim that the other extreme is to be entirely avoided, if not wiped out entirely, for the good of all.
Appropriately, Yoda's reaction after Anakin is turned is indicative of his wisdom in this regard. He is able to see past the "dark side is all bad and light side is all good" partisan view of the Jedi and realize that there needs to be a happy medium, and that Anakin has fulfilled the prophecy. Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan are shocked and say "how can the prophecy be true if Anakin becomes evil/you were supposed to be the chosen one", etc., while Yoda is not particularly surprised by this turn of events. Most of the "outsiders" in the Star Wars universe (movies, games, novels, etc.) feared the Jedi just as much as the Sith, if not more, since they were more open about their operations.
I don't really see a change in Lucas' concept. It's rather his first demonstration that the light-side viewpoint is not the only one that is valid, regardless of what the Jedi had been preaching. Lucas is making Anakin's turn more sympathetic to the audience in demonstrating this.
Right, so the collective "the Sith" could be like saying "the Jedi" -- any follower of that religion or member of their order. Could be more than 2. Their "Lords/Dark Lords of/Darths/Jedi Master-equivalents" could be limited to 2, though.
When I meet a real sith, I'll be sure to ask them about it.
Perhaps "Darth" is a rank? Imagine: "Only a master of evil, General", and "A young jedi named General Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil...".
On second thought, naw. Lucas was backpedalling there.
This wiki information comes from the books and games, which, again, are not considered canon. If we are including those in this discussion for argument's sake and include the KOTOR games (Revan and Malek, etc.), and there are many many "sith" in those (unless they are referring to the sith lords' grunts/troopers/dark jedi as "sith" in a generic sense).
Your wiki quote is also referring to the Lords of the sith (the ones limited to 2 and are called "Darth"), but does not mention what the lower-ranking dark jedi might be called.
Anyway, my geek argumentative urge has passed. Who the hell knows that is in Lucas' head, other than a craving for fatty foods and cash?
I guess I assumed that Dooku was a Dark Side disciple at the time that he ordered the clone army for the Republic (in secret). Perhaps he was just working for Sidious but not yet a Sith apprentice?
In any case, do you think that Dooku (who is older and seems far more powerful than Darth Maul ever was, at least in Episode II) would just sign on that quickly to become Sidous' new apprentice after Maul bought it? I prefer to think that he was around the whole time, but who knows? It's a movie series, and not the most consisent one at that.
I still think that Sith = dark side version of Jedi, and Sith Lord = dark side version of Jedi Master (with there being a limit of 2 Sith Lords, and a dozen or so Jedi Masters). But who cares.
True, plus the impression that I got (and one of the reasons that Qui-Gon was thought of as a "radical" jedi by the council, and as a result, so was his disciple Obi-Wan) was that Qui-Gon was a hardcore believer in the science of the midichlorians as the explanation of their ability to sense the force, whereas most of the other Jedi knew of the existence of the midichlorians but did not put as much credence or emphasis on them as Qui-Gon. They were old school Jedi.
So when they all died, and Anakin did not live up to Qui-Gon's prophetic balance predictions, Obi-Wan probably lost some faith in the teachings of Qui-Gon and the radical science he believed in and fell in with Yoda.
The 2 of them being the last of the light-side Jedi, it doesn't take much to see how the not-very-well-known or prevalent scientific radical view of midichlorians would die out quickly, leaving only the mystical view of The Force.
Pre-Episode IV Obi-Wan probably gained even more faith in the old school Jedi views after Yoda showed him the becoming/communing-with-the-Jedi-ghost trick -- which emphatically refutes the midichlorian view of things (ghostly spirits can have no symbiotic cells in their bodies -- they have no bodies -- so how can midichlorians be the answer?).
I kinda thought that there could only be 2 sith LORDS, but any number of sith. This is backed up by the fact that Dooku, Darth Maul, Darth Sidious were all dark side followers and all alive at the same time for at least one of the prequels, not to mention the fact that there are dozens of dark jedi and sith in the Knights of the Old Republic games and the Star Wars novels (though not canon, granted). So I tend to think that even if they had turned Luke to the dark side and he became a sith, Vader and Sidious could have remained the Sith Lords for as long as the Emperor chose.
Also, if the sith had ruled the galaxy prior to the prequels and were trying to get their power back, as Episode III indicated, then there would have had to be many more than just 2 of them. In the first prequel, Yoda says "always 2 there are, a master and an apprentice", but he doesn't say specifically what he is referring to -- 2 sith total, or 2 sith Lords or masters.
Wouldn't it be great if we somehow proved beyond a doubt that the bible was originally written as work of fiction that some guy just cranked out to make a buck or gain power over the ignorant masses (Dianetics, anyone?) ?
I really hope that two thousand years from now, we are not all worshipping Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, acting like it was the truth! Oh, wait... many of us already are. My bad.
Best Bateman Quote: Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
As if other democracies were nothing but pale copies of perfection
Well, considering the fact that we a) were the first ones to implement our own form of government that was previously just a bunch of hypothetical political writings b) we've been practicing it for over 200 years, then yeah I would call the other governments that have implemented similar pseudo-democratic forms of government "copies". Now perfection is another matter, but please show me a government that is perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what has Microsoft ever done for us?
I think he's confusing A with Eh.
They block 10% and support 90% of users. Tell me how that equates to blocking 90% and supporting 10%, and I'll be all over it.
Unfortunately, this would lead to children who can play through Zelda is one sitting, but cannot spell their names. Not to mention a nation full of staggeringly un-well-rounded students who are masters of 2 or 3 things, but know next to nothing about the others.
If we let kids choose to learn only what they want to learn, how will many of them gain any exposure to anything that might be initially uninteresting, but ultimately satisfying? I had 5 horrible history teachers that made me hate the idea of reading about the past until one teacher in late high school completely changed my mind. But I guess I should not have had to learn it, eh?
Engaging teachers can teach students to learn to love things that they might not have a natural, out-of-the-gate interest in. And the students will then seek out new things to learn about, regardless of their initial views, breeding open-mindedness in enriching themselves.
Neither has anything redundant, either.
Good solution. Let's just keep dumbing down everything everywhere until people are not forced to do anything other than drool on their shirts.
I'd like to add that the type A people above can accomplish things by learning the step by step process, but they do not really "learn" things by doing this until things finally click and they actually begin to understand the underlying behavior behind the system that the type B people catch onto early on. They have to do the process over and over and it's not until they start to think about WHY what they are doing works that they really start to learn anything.
I'd also add another category of person (C): the apathetic and lazy who just don't want to learn anything unless forced to do so, even if you throw it in their faces.
they either ignore it or just refuse to listen because they "aren't a hacker and don't know this computer stuff".
It's this willful ignorance that really gets to me. I can understand ignorance -- no one is born knowing how to maintain their computers. But there is an enormous segment out there who a) want all of the advantages of having a working computer in their homes and b) either are not willing or cannot be bothered to even attempt to learn how to take care of their computer, even if they have someone around who is willing to help them learn it.
The "oh, I don't have time for that stuff, it's too hard" mentality is everywhere.
If you want to go for a drive, you have to learn how to operate a car. Laziness, fear, or just plain apathy are what frosts my shorts about this whole thing.
Coming soon: iBabySeal
Then let them adapt... Right now we are being inundated with ads of all kinds in all mediums. You literally cannot turn your head without being exposed to an ad for something, whether on a billboard, radio, tv, the net, city bus, your friend's t-shirt, etc. etc.
Some of these methods deserve to be kicked to the curb, like the newest trends of advertising inside of video games that I've paid to play, and before movies that I've paid to see.
According to doubleclick's logic, if I turn my head away from a billboard, I'm stealing money from the advertisers' pockets, with is utter BS. Cutting out ads in the online service that I pay for each month is my right. If these companies cannot make a buck any other way, then let them charge for their crappy content and see how much revenue they make. I'll either decide that the value of their service is worth the headache of the ads, or I won't, but it's my decision to make and mine alone. I may be taking away a potential (very lower percentage) sale from the advertiser, but it's the utter uselessness of the medium they are using that is to blame if the company loses money. Give me useful ads that make me aware of things that pertain specifically to me that I might actually want to buy, and I'll buy the products.
The advertisers should be forced to evolve in the ways they get their messages out, and the users should be able to choose the eradication of certain methods that they find annoying without interference. They use this same "we've lost a potential sale" logic to justify DRM, as well as the elimination of the commericial-skipping buttons from DVRs, when the fact is that the consumers hold the power to determine whether to listen to ads or not, just as they hold the power to buy or not to buy. It's corporate BS.
Make these companies cater to us, not the other way around. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more!
In Korea, only old people complain about agism.
Exactly. Imagine if we had never dropped the bombs on Japan. There would never have been a demonstration of how horrible and devastating these weapons could be in a real war -- they would have been unproven, theoretical weapons that had never been demonstrated effective in wartime use. We may not have been as hesitant to use them in the later Cold War as we were. Both the Soviets and the Americans were well aware of the bombs' horrors and effectiveness, and hence, less inclined to actually use them over the next 50 years.
I like to think that the horrors of the bombs' effects on Japan in the 40s helped to prevent an even greater catastrophe in later year. We were close enough to pushing "the button" on the Soviets as it was, without having the "let's see if they really work" mentality and lack of understanding of the truly awful devastation they leave behind. And considering that their effectiveness increased a hundredfold as the technology developed, I'm saddened for the Japanese, but grateful that we did not save the "first time" for later on.
I guess this is only "from a certain point of view", to quote a Jedi. Any philosophy with 2 polar opposites (good/evil, order/chaos, dark/light, fascism/communism, democrat/republican [sorry :)]) works that way. A member of one extreme will claim that the other extreme is to be entirely avoided, if not wiped out entirely, for the good of all.
Appropriately, Yoda's reaction after Anakin is turned is indicative of his wisdom in this regard. He is able to see past the "dark side is all bad and light side is all good" partisan view of the Jedi and realize that there needs to be a happy medium, and that Anakin has fulfilled the prophecy. Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan are shocked and say "how can the prophecy be true if Anakin becomes evil/you were supposed to be the chosen one", etc., while Yoda is not particularly surprised by this turn of events. Most of the "outsiders" in the Star Wars universe (movies, games, novels, etc.) feared the Jedi just as much as the Sith, if not more, since they were more open about their operations.
I don't really see a change in Lucas' concept. It's rather his first demonstration that the light-side viewpoint is not the only one that is valid, regardless of what the Jedi had been preaching. Lucas is making Anakin's turn more sympathetic to the audience in demonstrating this.
Right, so the collective "the Sith" could be like saying "the Jedi" -- any follower of that religion or member of their order. Could be more than 2. Their "Lords/Dark Lords of/Darths/Jedi Master-equivalents" could be limited to 2, though.
When I meet a real sith, I'll be sure to ask them about it.
Perhaps "Darth" is a rank? Imagine: "Only a master of evil, General", and "A young jedi named General Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil...".
On second thought, naw. Lucas was backpedalling there.
This wiki information comes from the books and games, which, again, are not considered canon. If we are including those in this discussion for argument's sake and include the KOTOR games (Revan and Malek, etc.), and there are many many "sith" in those (unless they are referring to the sith lords' grunts/troopers/dark jedi as "sith" in a generic sense).
Your wiki quote is also referring to the Lords of the sith (the ones limited to 2 and are called "Darth"), but does not mention what the lower-ranking dark jedi might be called.
Anyway, my geek argumentative urge has passed. Who the hell knows that is in Lucas' head, other than a craving for fatty foods and cash?
I guess I assumed that Dooku was a Dark Side disciple at the time that he ordered the clone army for the Republic (in secret). Perhaps he was just working for Sidious but not yet a Sith apprentice?
In any case, do you think that Dooku (who is older and seems far more powerful than Darth Maul ever was, at least in Episode II) would just sign on that quickly to become Sidous' new apprentice after Maul bought it? I prefer to think that he was around the whole time, but who knows? It's a movie series, and not the most consisent one at that.
I still think that Sith = dark side version of Jedi, and Sith Lord = dark side version of Jedi Master (with there being a limit of 2 Sith Lords, and a dozen or so Jedi Masters). But who cares.
True, plus the impression that I got (and one of the reasons that Qui-Gon was thought of as a "radical" jedi by the council, and as a result, so was his disciple Obi-Wan) was that Qui-Gon was a hardcore believer in the science of the midichlorians as the explanation of their ability to sense the force, whereas most of the other Jedi knew of the existence of the midichlorians but did not put as much credence or emphasis on them as Qui-Gon. They were old school Jedi.
So when they all died, and Anakin did not live up to Qui-Gon's prophetic balance predictions, Obi-Wan probably lost some faith in the teachings of Qui-Gon and the radical science he believed in and fell in with Yoda.
The 2 of them being the last of the light-side Jedi, it doesn't take much to see how the not-very-well-known or prevalent scientific radical view of midichlorians would die out quickly, leaving only the mystical view of The Force.
Pre-Episode IV Obi-Wan probably gained even more faith in the old school Jedi views after Yoda showed him the becoming/communing-with-the-Jedi-ghost trick -- which emphatically refutes the midichlorian view of things (ghostly spirits can have no symbiotic cells in their bodies -- they have no bodies -- so how can midichlorians be the answer?).
I kinda thought that there could only be 2 sith LORDS, but any number of sith. This is backed up by the fact that Dooku, Darth Maul, Darth Sidious were all dark side followers and all alive at the same time for at least one of the prequels, not to mention the fact that there are dozens of dark jedi and sith in the Knights of the Old Republic games and the Star Wars novels (though not canon, granted). So I tend to think that even if they had turned Luke to the dark side and he became a sith, Vader and Sidious could have remained the Sith Lords for as long as the Emperor chose.
Also, if the sith had ruled the galaxy prior to the prequels and were trying to get their power back, as Episode III indicated, then there would have had to be many more than just 2 of them. In the first prequel, Yoda says "always 2 there are, a master and an apprentice", but he doesn't say specifically what he is referring to -- 2 sith total, or 2 sith Lords or masters.
Wouldn't it be great if we somehow proved beyond a doubt that the bible was originally written as work of fiction that some guy just cranked out to make a buck or gain power over the ignorant masses (Dianetics, anyone?) ?
I really hope that two thousand years from now, we are not all worshipping Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, acting like it was the truth! Oh, wait... many of us already are. My bad.
Best Bateman Quote: Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
but I can see how games would benefit from SMT or SMP design more than many problems
I disagree. I think that games would benefit more from many problems.
I find ya'lls lack of Faith Hill disturbin'.
As if other democracies were nothing but pale copies of perfection
Well, considering the fact that we a) were the first ones to implement our own form of government that was previously just a bunch of hypothetical political writings b) we've been practicing it for over 200 years, then yeah I would call the other governments that have implemented similar pseudo-democratic forms of government "copies". Now perfection is another matter, but please show me a government that is perfect.
Better yet, let's just get rid of all stupid people. Problem solved.