If it takes it from Halo 1 exclusively, then it might be 3 hours; 1.5 hours of the normal movie, and then 1.5 hours retracing the same steps backwards, and if it takes things up to the "end" of Halo 2, then whatever the length, it'll end about at least a half hour before it gets around to wrapping anything up.
But to be serious (as serious as one should be with, yaknow, entertainment), it probably won't follow the games too rabidly. And this will probably be a good thing. See, for example, the Resident Evil movie, at least the first one; it inhabits the same world as the games, but shows a different part of it, one more suitable for movies. And, at least in my opinion, it really succeeds as a movie in its own right. Hopefully (and I was doubtful before, because Resident Evil was quite the fluke as far as video-game movies go, which was unfortunately proven by the sequel) with such a team behind the making of the movie, it can do the right thing and make a good movie based on the premise and world of Halo, instead of just the problematic retreading of the game(s) that most video-game movies end up as.
Well, any kind of sex that isn't for procreation, I guess. Which would probably mean that all sex, sexual acts and sexual content intended to entertain rather than procreate is deviant and, thus, illegal in this new christian government. -
So it's only illegal if you pull out? -
Wrong kindof thinking here. It's no fun to make it "only illegal if"; that's not how the justice system works, and certainly not how this kind of initiative in specific generally works. It's more of a "also illegal if" deal!
Now, naturally, they aren't literally going to make pulling out illegal, but nearly everything up to that could be, or at least there is a certain contingent that would like it to be (I would be seriously scared and surprised if that actually came to pass). Note that only recently were the Sodomy Laws in the United States entirely stricken down; true, they had been mostly dismantled (op-ed: rightly so!) beforehand, but the official, overall word on the matter was recent enough that there are many influential politicians and private parties who believe (for the sake of the souls of our children!) that these laws should find a return (or at least that similar measures of control should be implimented).
Huh, if your experience is anything to speak from, then I'm quite glad I didn't buy that copy of With Teeth when I had the option! Thank you, AC, for making me feel better about my choices!
Why, I bought some the other day! I have a record player right beside my monitor here, and I have records released in the oh-so-distant year of 2005 . . . in other words, don't lament the death of vinyl yet! For exactly some of the same reasons parent notes, vinyl is enjoying a bit of a comeback. Two of my newer ones (Sloan's 2003 "Action Pact" and...Trail of Dead's 2005 "Worlds Apart" have some nicely on-par-with-oldskool artwork throughout, and at least, they're far beyond what I would have gotten with purchasing the CDs of each.
Okay, admittedly, it depends where you live. I actually spend most of my time in Edmonton, MiddleofnowhereAlberta, and here it's damn impossible to find new vinyl. Most of what I currently have I picked up from Zulu Records last time I was in Vancouver; every record store I went to there, though, had actual records, so I'd go as far as to say that in major cities across North America you'll be able to buy new vinyl with at most a small amount of hassle (the ones I picked up at Zulu Records were little pricier, if at all, than the CD version would be; and to be able to find an unopened copy of "Surfer Rosa" for less than a new CD of the album would be is just wonderous).
On a more topical sidenote; it does get a bit tricky when speaking of modern recordings, as to the sound quality. I was tempted to pick up a copy of "With Teeth" recently, but I resisted; true, the track order is even different and includes a song not on the "normal" version (Trent Reznor notably recently railed against the terrible lack of options for packaging nowadays with CDs, and so like he often does, the vinyl release of his latest album gives a big thumbs-up to vinyl collectors), but I had to admit that I already had the dualdisc version . . .
See, older albums would have been recorded with analog means, but anything relatively recent is going to have been recorded at least in a large part digitally, and mixed thusly and so forth. So often analog won't give you nearly the theoretical audio-quality increase that it used to with older releases. Furthermore, as is the case with the aforementioned dualdisc version of "With Teeth", the album might come in higher-than-CD quality digital, with characteristics that vinyl can't reproduce (in this example, having been recorded and engineered, by someone who really knows how to do this, in 5.1).
So, alas, vinyl has its strong suits and its weaknesses. But it certainly beats iTMS quality, for more than just the cover art question, and I could never give up the ability to flip on Side B of "Surfer Rosa" and here that "whooooooooo-stop" as Where Is My Mind begins with those slight, slight crackles audible clearly at the insane volume I've turned it up to . . .
So, parent, props to you, I mostly agree, but I'm going to paraphrase: Break out the old turntable, grab a favorite vinyl from a store, and remember how music still can be!
It's more about the complete downplaying of the Neanderthals, and the chronology; 40 years ago they thought that they were predecessors, earlier forms of mankind. And alot of the evidence we use to show otherwise still existed back then; it was just ignored or differently classified ("Complex tools? Hmm, well, there's some Neanderthal remains nearby, but they were too damn stupid to make these. Only true humans make tools").
Furthermore the cranial capacity was glossed over, no attempt was made to discern the actual complexity of the brains within, etc etc etc. It's less a story of lack of evidence and more a story of lack of willingness to look at the evidence, due mainly to chauvanistic views of humanity. (Huh, I'm sounding like a zealot here; maybe a "Neanderthalist").
My point is that maybe superfically they would have given the possibilities that we've discussed; but they would have extensively argued that they were quite sure the Neanderthals were beneath us. As far as the scientific community believes now, they could only claim at most that they were a bit beneath us; most evidence (and I do speak often of artifacts re-examined in more modern light) points to the Neanderthals inventing technology that humans later stole, and an all-around equal level of intelligence.
40 years ago: "Yeah, maybe they were a different species, maybe they were part of Homo sapiens. But they belong way down on the ladder from where Homo sapiens sapiens fits. They went extinct because they sucked."
Now: "They were about on par with us, evolving contiguously, and disappeared relatively recently for reasons we, uhh, dunno really. No, don't leave yet, we can make educated guesses!"
Even just reading the difference in tone over the last few decades in Anthopology on the subject, there is a tremendous revolution in the conception of the Neanderthals.
The problem sometimes in science is that people get attached to their models; they cling to the simple model (even if there are simpler ones now, or more intuitive or logical ones) with the kind of posessiveness of a kid with a favorite old toy. Hell, they become almost religious beliefs. When you spend a professional career contantly thinking about things with a particular take on it, when so many of your waking thoughts make the same underlying presumptions . . . it's hard to let go. That's why there's still so many apologists for the Newtonian model of Physics; I even know a professor with a Physics degree that refuses to admit any innacuracy (though that's a bit of an extreme example).
Sure, science can't just leap to the correct conclusions automatically. In theory I completely agree with you on all of that, but I'd argue that, just like actual evolution, science is not a well-oiled constantly upwards-moving machine. There are fits and bursts and throwbacks and etc etc etc.
(And the especially tricky part is when one sticks to the "simplist model" which is only simplist because it agrees the most with current societal beliefs and is the easiest to explain in the common vernacular . . . this may seem to fit the kind of Occam's Razor test of credibility, while in reality it really just subverts it).
Part of it is that it's debatable whether they ever entirely diverged; the two "species" might have interbred and reintegrated, thus breaking the definition of species. In that case, certainly not "a completely different beast". And of course there's dozens of different takes on the theories, each of them different but nearly all disagreeing with the "recognisable as a precursor to ourselves, but a completely different beast" statement. The specifics of why that statement is wrong, and/or which specific parts are wrong, depends on which hypothesis you follow.
Anyways, to assuage your guilt, I have to note that I honestly wasn't using reverse psychology; I truly believed I'd be modded off-topic, I didn't and don't expect my comment to that effect to change much in that department; indeed, so far I'm somewhat surprised (but things can change). Going off on a tangent can get you punished on Slashdot, indeed it quite regularly does, and I figured if I was already deviating from the original subject matter, I might as well go for the gusto. I would hate myself if I had been trying to trick people into modding me a certain way; moderation is a defence that Slashdot has had to resort to for signal-to-noise reasons and so forth, it's an unfortunate sidenote but one that should be merely the foundation supporting the weight of actual informed discussion. If I was going to play games for points, I might as well just turn to a video game . . .
It's like Homo neanderthalensis, recognisable as a precursor to ourselves, but a completely different beast.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but you chose completely the wrong example to use as an analogy.
Homo Neanderthalensis . . . yeah, they used to be seen as a precursor to "humankind", but that was due in a large part to the fact that scientists, unfortunately for the accuracy of results and theories, are human . . . archaeologists and paleontologists inherited from their cultures a huge burden of preconceptions about what "human" is, and combined with some of the initial findings of the Neanderthals being actually terribly diseased and atypical examples, along with the misclassification of any artifacts left behind as instead being left behind by Homo Sapiens . . . well, it's only recently (relatively speaking) that the scientific community has started to wake up to the rather non-linear relationship of "us to them".
Now, naturally, conclusions are far from certain. At some point the Neanderthals diverged; but it's hard to argue that then the human race continued on and left them behind, the actual demise of the Neanderthals is a trickier business. Arguments range from interbreeding (we're all Neanderthals!) to ourbreeding (as in, humans moved into Neanderthal territory as climates changed, and like rabbits we just outpopulated them, pushing them away), to war (stone age style), combinations of all the above, and more. What is at least certain, though, is that the Neanderthals weren't, uhh, of the nature that you describe them as being.
Not sure why I spent that brief period of time dredging all that up, I'll probably either be ignored or modded (probably rightfully, though unfortunately it's a policy that squashes interesting tangential discussion) off-topic. Oh well!
Ugliness has no place on the Mac desktop, even on the web.
Neither does actual functionality. Style over substance, baby!
(Honestly, there's no OS without flaws)
Uh, in order for a statement to be libel or slander, it has to be a lie. You can say whatever rotten thing you want about a person, so long as it is the truth. A slanderous statement made under oath is perjury, by definition.
As far as I know, people have gotten in trouble in ways that reached into court for bringing up truths that were "slanderous" towards others. This does seem to happen often, even if the law *shouldn't* be letting it happen. Though I'm too lazy to try to dig up examples.
I don't suppose anyone has come up with a benign version of this, that only does the removal? It'd actually be pretty useful to have a tool like that around, yaknow; a quick viral fix for your clogged home network! I can see it being of great help whenever fixing friends' systems, eliminate some of the potential problems with a quick infection, how poetically perfect!
That's entirely the case. Russia nowadays completely trumps the half-hearted attempts of the States to be truly capitalist. Now, whether this is a good thing, or whether the relative moderation and of the American system is better . . . well, that's actually a rather long and extensive debate.
News results for hans island - View today's top stories
Island squabble goes Google - CNN International - 28 Jul 2005
How trippy is that? The top thing on the page is a news link about how the issue has hit google. Still no sign of what the article is mentioning, but the story about it is quite prominent!
People are actually doing that in my city; that is to say, our local cable company recently started offering phone service along with 'net connection. It comes with free long distance anywhere in Canada. When it was first offered half a year ago it was quite buggy, strange interference issues, but it's now quite fine and one my my friends' family has switched entirely over to it, cut off their phone lines completely.
(if anyone's interested, the company in question is Shaw Cable....the reason behind their move ahead is mainly as a continued offensive against their main telecommunication competitor, Telus, which happens to have all of their workers on strike right now, so Shaw is poised to grab a huge chunk of the Albertan market over the next little while while Telus tries desperately just to stay afloat).
This post higher up here in this very same thread notes a system for doing this. If parent gets Score 5, Interesting, then the guy I'm linking to should get some mod notice too!
Go ahead and mod me redundant (I deserve it, I'm linking to a post within this very discussion!), but first mod the other guy up!
Back when this battle was fought over VCRs and casette tapes, the eventual conclusion was levys and then the matter was settled.
I think, however, that this time around, the companies and corporations have enough influence, a greater hold on the justice system, that consumers won't get the same deal they did before. The slow warping over time of copyright laws shows this trend quite clearly, methinks.
The argument, of course, is that this digital stuff is somehow different; in reality, it's only more effective at distribution, the fundamentals of being able to copy, etc are still the same, and the fact that (with the exception of Canada, for the moment) the issue is not being resolved the same way it was in previous technological iterations, well, that's a sign of the times a changin'.
Bands that allow you to download their songs free of charge still exist, quite a few come to mind right off the bat.
There's always The Trews, who offer alot of their songs including alternative versions other than the ones on their main album . . . err, wait, the page is down right now.
Well, I remember Alice In Videoland offered actually all of their songs online in mp3 and . . . oh, the page doesn't seem to exist anymore at all.
Well, 8mm at least lets you stream all of their songs online . . . geez, I'm not really making my point here, am I? I swear bands still offer mp3s . . . well, at least Shocknina seems to do so, and they're a new band too. I guess the problem is, to be able to offer mp3s, you often have to be an independent artist, the record companies take exception to that kind of thing. Well, I mean, Trent Reznor released his last two singles in a form that one could even pull apart and remix easily, basically giving access to something akin to the source audio . . . but that's the kind of thing only a huge but eccentric artist like Nine Inch Nails can get away with.
Both get sketchy once they've gone from "theory" to "regulated system". Patents were supposed to help the little guy, but ended up becoming as a system bloated and high-maitenence, with the power falling to the side of whomever had the most power already (ie. corporations, who find it much easier, what with not being individual people, to muster up forces and influence) and thus increasing the differential between the big guys and little guys.
And, if the noises lately about regulating the internet start changing into action, the same story might happen there too (they have often already, in individual cases).
Right now, because of the penetration that the idea of iPods has had on the general consciousness of the public, yeah, more iPods are selling than ever. Also, they've released really cheap versions, so people that have been waiting for them finally are buying.
However, that doesn't mean that the fever is still going strong. It's a strong current business position, true, but whether they'll remain such hot commodities is another question. Right now they are the only ones most people have even heard about, iPods are synonymous with portable digital audio, and that's why people are buying them so damn much. But as far as the "omfg sew koool" factor goes, they're getting a bit . . . well, "stale" is not at all the right term, but they aren't piping hot anymore, the hype doesn't still burn the tongue. And people are, in fact, finally realizing that there are perfectly viable alternatives, and some of them actually have features and streamlined support rivaling the iPod.
Yeah yeah, argue that they still aren't there, but some of them are just plain better in some areas, even if they have other faults, and that's the key: the iPod isn't the only alternative. People are starting to compare them to Zen, iRiver, even some fancy new Samsungs, and that's the part where Apple is trying to hold on. People are actually comparing, instead of just automatically buying iPods. So even if they're still predominately buying iPods when the day is done regardless, Apple's position isn't as carved in stone as it was previously.
--------
Admitting my bias up front, though, since if anyone replies it'll probably include attacks, this being slashdot and whatnot: I really don't like iPods, in both technical and fashionable senses. Technically because they don't play the kind of audio I want (ogg-vorbis and flac) and require things I also would rather do without like iTunes, etc, and don't keep the files neat and tidy on the player, nooo, they're in random folders, grrrr, and a million little things like that. So, without the vertical integration of the iPod that sells many people (such as mac users, who are already using things compatible) the iPod starts to lose alot of ground in my books.
But then the fashionabilty. Oh, hell. I met one person last year who wouldn't have dared considering buying anything other than an iPod, even after admitting that others might be better in both price and practicality; they just weren't nearly as fashionable. What a worthless sheep. And that's just it; to me, iPods are just a mark of "ooh, look at me, I'm going with the flow." And so, if you disagree with my assesment and are certain that it can't possibly be objective, then go ahead and use ad hominem arguments:)
Easier to just use Hershies Kisses and some alcohol, or sometimes just a movie in a dark room . . . not that I intended things to work that way any of the times, that would be manipulative . . . luckily, I can honestly say that unitended things happen sometimes . . . ah, maybe the trick is not intending anything devious from the beginning? (Can I honestly say that, or am I lying to myself? hmmm....)
Honestly, it's not like I don't own movies, music, etc . . . actually, I own a LOT. But I always rip the ones I have, if I haven't already downloaded them (and thus bought them because I liked them so much, and wanted to actually own them, for principle or posterity or 'cause they were on some crazy $1.50 sale or etc) simply because it's sooo much more convenient.
Comparing TV series saved on CD to DVD, if I'm watching on my computer, it's much easier to just pop in the disc and double-click on the episode, instead of having to actually navigate menus, wait while there's time delays, and so forth. And proper rips, I can just switch at a moments notice between normal audio and, say, a commentary track, so if I'm listening to the directors talking, and then I go "oh, yeah, I want to just re-watch that scene in normal right now" I can actually do that in seconds instead of the convoluted process in DVDs.
It's the difference that comes with having a format that's the raw media (relatively speaking) instead of it tucked away inside of virtual packaging. These points could go on and on, but I'm sure anyone reading/. knows the kinds of things I'm talking about (like just queuing up multiple episodes, easy skipping, etc). Generally, I'm actually quite unimpressed with the lack of user-friendlyness of DVDs and whatnot; for CDs, it's just albums, but for DVDs I expect something less arcane. Oh, it's great for the average consumer, yada yada, but I've (yes, often illegally) seen it done in ways so much simpler for my needs (and since I have enough access to computers with s-video out, no advantage to having it on DVD players for me) I therefore can't quite abide by non-ripping ways.
And so, yeah, for these movies it just makes sense for them, what with being in public domain and all, to be so easily available for download and distribution as rips.
Hey, even if the industry complains "free movies cut into our profit!", well them, you'll just have to make things that are new and interesting enough that people will want to buy the new ones even while they can get the classics for free. Hah, now that might make you get off your asses and do something worthwhile, now you have to compete with your own past!
Slashdot Mirror
If it takes it from Halo 1 exclusively, then it might be 3 hours; 1.5 hours of the normal movie, and then 1.5 hours retracing the same steps backwards, and if it takes things up to the "end" of Halo 2, then whatever the length, it'll end about at least a half hour before it gets around to wrapping anything up.
But to be serious (as serious as one should be with, yaknow, entertainment), it probably won't follow the games too rabidly. And this will probably be a good thing. See, for example, the Resident Evil movie, at least the first one; it inhabits the same world as the games, but shows a different part of it, one more suitable for movies. And, at least in my opinion, it really succeeds as a movie in its own right. Hopefully (and I was doubtful before, because Resident Evil was quite the fluke as far as video-game movies go, which was unfortunately proven by the sequel) with such a team behind the making of the movie, it can do the right thing and make a good movie based on the premise and world of Halo, instead of just the problematic retreading of the game(s) that most video-game movies end up as.
Well, any kind of sex that isn't for procreation, I guess. Which would probably mean that all sex, sexual acts and sexual content intended to entertain rather than procreate is deviant and, thus, illegal in this new christian government.
-
So it's only illegal if you pull out?
-
Wrong kindof thinking here. It's no fun to make it "only illegal if"; that's not how the justice system works, and certainly not how this kind of initiative in specific generally works. It's more of a "also illegal if" deal!
Now, naturally, they aren't literally going to make pulling out illegal, but nearly everything up to that could be, or at least there is a certain contingent that would like it to be (I would be seriously scared and surprised if that actually came to pass). Note that only recently were the Sodomy Laws in the United States entirely stricken down; true, they had been mostly dismantled (op-ed: rightly so!) beforehand, but the official, overall word on the matter was recent enough that there are many influential politicians and private parties who believe (for the sake of the souls of our children!) that these laws should find a return (or at least that similar measures of control should be implimented).
Huh, if your experience is anything to speak from, then I'm quite glad I didn't buy that copy of With Teeth when I had the option! Thank you, AC, for making me feel better about my choices!
Why, I bought some the other day! I have a record player right beside my monitor here, and I have records released in the oh-so-distant year of 2005 . . . in other words, don't lament the death of vinyl yet! For exactly some of the same reasons parent notes, vinyl is enjoying a bit of a comeback. Two of my newer ones (Sloan's 2003 "Action Pact" and ...Trail of Dead's 2005 "Worlds Apart" have some nicely on-par-with-oldskool artwork throughout, and at least, they're far beyond what I would have gotten with purchasing the CDs of each.
Okay, admittedly, it depends where you live. I actually spend most of my time in Edmonton, MiddleofnowhereAlberta, and here it's damn impossible to find new vinyl. Most of what I currently have I picked up from Zulu Records last time I was in Vancouver; every record store I went to there, though, had actual records, so I'd go as far as to say that in major cities across North America you'll be able to buy new vinyl with at most a small amount of hassle (the ones I picked up at Zulu Records were little pricier, if at all, than the CD version would be; and to be able to find an unopened copy of "Surfer Rosa" for less than a new CD of the album would be is just wonderous).
On a more topical sidenote; it does get a bit tricky when speaking of modern recordings, as to the sound quality. I was tempted to pick up a copy of "With Teeth" recently, but I resisted; true, the track order is even different and includes a song not on the "normal" version (Trent Reznor notably recently railed against the terrible lack of options for packaging nowadays with CDs, and so like he often does, the vinyl release of his latest album gives a big thumbs-up to vinyl collectors), but I had to admit that I already had the dualdisc version . . .
See, older albums would have been recorded with analog means, but anything relatively recent is going to have been recorded at least in a large part digitally, and mixed thusly and so forth. So often analog won't give you nearly the theoretical audio-quality increase that it used to with older releases. Furthermore, as is the case with the aforementioned dualdisc version of "With Teeth", the album might come in higher-than-CD quality digital, with characteristics that vinyl can't reproduce (in this example, having been recorded and engineered, by someone who really knows how to do this, in 5.1).
So, alas, vinyl has its strong suits and its weaknesses. But it certainly beats iTMS quality, for more than just the cover art question, and I could never give up the ability to flip on Side B of "Surfer Rosa" and here that "whooooooooo-stop" as Where Is My Mind begins with those slight, slight crackles audible clearly at the insane volume I've turned it up to . . .
So, parent, props to you, I mostly agree, but I'm going to paraphrase: Break out the old turntable, grab a favorite vinyl from a store, and remember how music still can be!
It's more about the complete downplaying of the Neanderthals, and the chronology; 40 years ago they thought that they were predecessors, earlier forms of mankind. And alot of the evidence we use to show otherwise still existed back then; it was just ignored or differently classified ("Complex tools? Hmm, well, there's some Neanderthal remains nearby, but they were too damn stupid to make these. Only true humans make tools").
Furthermore the cranial capacity was glossed over, no attempt was made to discern the actual complexity of the brains within, etc etc etc. It's less a story of lack of evidence and more a story of lack of willingness to look at the evidence, due mainly to chauvanistic views of humanity. (Huh, I'm sounding like a zealot here; maybe a "Neanderthalist").
My point is that maybe superfically they would have given the possibilities that we've discussed; but they would have extensively argued that they were quite sure the Neanderthals were beneath us. As far as the scientific community believes now, they could only claim at most that they were a bit beneath us; most evidence (and I do speak often of artifacts re-examined in more modern light) points to the Neanderthals inventing technology that humans later stole, and an all-around equal level of intelligence.
40 years ago: "Yeah, maybe they were a different species, maybe they were part of Homo sapiens. But they belong way down on the ladder from where Homo sapiens sapiens fits. They went extinct because they sucked."
Now: "They were about on par with us, evolving contiguously, and disappeared relatively recently for reasons we, uhh, dunno really. No, don't leave yet, we can make educated guesses!"
Even just reading the difference in tone over the last few decades in Anthopology on the subject, there is a tremendous revolution in the conception of the Neanderthals.
The problem sometimes in science is that people get attached to their models; they cling to the simple model (even if there are simpler ones now, or more intuitive or logical ones) with the kind of posessiveness of a kid with a favorite old toy. Hell, they become almost religious beliefs. When you spend a professional career contantly thinking about things with a particular take on it, when so many of your waking thoughts make the same underlying presumptions . . . it's hard to let go. That's why there's still so many apologists for the Newtonian model of Physics; I even know a professor with a Physics degree that refuses to admit any innacuracy (though that's a bit of an extreme example).
Sure, science can't just leap to the correct conclusions automatically. In theory I completely agree with you on all of that, but I'd argue that, just like actual evolution, science is not a well-oiled constantly upwards-moving machine. There are fits and bursts and throwbacks and etc etc etc.
(And the especially tricky part is when one sticks to the "simplist model" which is only simplist because it agrees the most with current societal beliefs and is the easiest to explain in the common vernacular . . . this may seem to fit the kind of Occam's Razor test of credibility, while in reality it really just subverts it).
Part of it is that it's debatable whether they ever entirely diverged; the two "species" might have interbred and reintegrated, thus breaking the definition of species. In that case, certainly not "a completely different beast". And of course there's dozens of different takes on the theories, each of them different but nearly all disagreeing with the "recognisable as a precursor to ourselves, but a completely different beast" statement. The specifics of why that statement is wrong, and/or which specific parts are wrong, depends on which hypothesis you follow.
Anyways, to assuage your guilt, I have to note that I honestly wasn't using reverse psychology; I truly believed I'd be modded off-topic, I didn't and don't expect my comment to that effect to change much in that department; indeed, so far I'm somewhat surprised (but things can change). Going off on a tangent can get you punished on Slashdot, indeed it quite regularly does, and I figured if I was already deviating from the original subject matter, I might as well go for the gusto. I would hate myself if I had been trying to trick people into modding me a certain way; moderation is a defence that Slashdot has had to resort to for signal-to-noise reasons and so forth, it's an unfortunate sidenote but one that should be merely the foundation supporting the weight of actual informed discussion. If I was going to play games for points, I might as well just turn to a video game . . .
It's like Homo neanderthalensis, recognisable as a precursor to ourselves, but a completely different beast.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but you chose completely the wrong example to use as an analogy.
Homo Neanderthalensis . . . yeah, they used to be seen as a precursor to "humankind", but that was due in a large part to the fact that scientists, unfortunately for the accuracy of results and theories, are human . . . archaeologists and paleontologists inherited from their cultures a huge burden of preconceptions about what "human" is, and combined with some of the initial findings of the Neanderthals being actually terribly diseased and atypical examples, along with the misclassification of any artifacts left behind as instead being left behind by Homo Sapiens . . . well, it's only recently (relatively speaking) that the scientific community has started to wake up to the rather non-linear relationship of "us to them".
Now, naturally, conclusions are far from certain. At some point the Neanderthals diverged; but it's hard to argue that then the human race continued on and left them behind, the actual demise of the Neanderthals is a trickier business. Arguments range from interbreeding (we're all Neanderthals!) to ourbreeding (as in, humans moved into Neanderthal territory as climates changed, and like rabbits we just outpopulated them, pushing them away), to war (stone age style), combinations of all the above, and more. What is at least certain, though, is that the Neanderthals weren't, uhh, of the nature that you describe them as being.
Some random sources for cross-reference:
Descent of Man - Neanderthal
Even a random religous tract from 1998 notes that Neanderthals are "no longer thought to be lineal ancestors of Homo Sapiens".
There's also some in-depth information here and here, and etc.
Not sure why I spent that brief period of time dredging all that up, I'll probably either be ignored or modded (probably rightfully, though unfortunately it's a policy that squashes interesting tangential discussion) off-topic. Oh well!
to mod parents up! Damn my lack of moderation points! (For once a year it seems....)
The Wintel world is just a huge petri dish.
Two things to note about that:
(1) Things grown in petri dishes can escape or be taken out and introduced elsewhere (like bacteria on an unsuspeting classmate).
(2) Apple is going to be using Intel soon, ain't it?
Conclusion: Fear what the petri dish will birth!
Ugliness has no place on the Mac desktop, even on the web. Neither does actual functionality. Style over substance, baby! (Honestly, there's no OS without flaws)
Uh, in order for a statement to be libel or slander, it has to be a lie. You can say whatever rotten thing you want about a person, so long as it is the truth. A slanderous statement made under oath is perjury, by definition.
As far as I know, people have gotten in trouble in ways that reached into court for bringing up truths that were "slanderous" towards others. This does seem to happen often, even if the law *shouldn't* be letting it happen. Though I'm too lazy to try to dig up examples.
I don't suppose anyone has come up with a benign version of this, that only does the removal? It'd actually be pretty useful to have a tool like that around, yaknow; a quick viral fix for your clogged home network! I can see it being of great help whenever fixing friends' systems, eliminate some of the potential problems with a quick infection, how poetically perfect!
That's entirely the case. Russia nowadays completely trumps the half-hearted attempts of the States to be truly capitalist. Now, whether this is a good thing, or whether the relative moderation and of the American system is better . . . well, that's actually a rather long and extensive debate.
:P
This being Slashdot, then, flame on!
a piece of spyware that attacks windows . . . but is only being reported by OSX people. Hmm, someone was a bit scatterbrained while coding...
To quote google:
News results for hans island - View today's top stories
Island squabble goes Google - CNN International - 28 Jul 2005
How trippy is that? The top thing on the page is a news link about how the issue has hit google. Still no sign of what the article is mentioning, but the story about it is quite prominent!
People are actually doing that in my city; that is to say, our local cable company recently started offering phone service along with 'net connection. It comes with free long distance anywhere in Canada. When it was first offered half a year ago it was quite buggy, strange interference issues, but it's now quite fine and one my my friends' family has switched entirely over to it, cut off their phone lines completely.
(if anyone's interested, the company in question is Shaw Cable....the reason behind their move ahead is mainly as a continued offensive against their main telecommunication competitor, Telus, which happens to have all of their workers on strike right now, so Shaw is poised to grab a huge chunk of the Albertan market over the next little while while Telus tries desperately just to stay afloat).
This post higher up here in this very same thread notes a system for doing this. If parent gets Score 5, Interesting, then the guy I'm linking to should get some mod notice too!
Go ahead and mod me redundant (I deserve it, I'm linking to a post within this very discussion!), but first mod the other guy up!
That's Socialist talk, you . . . you liberal!
...the more they change.
Back when this battle was fought over VCRs and casette tapes, the eventual conclusion was levys and then the matter was settled.
I think, however, that this time around, the companies and corporations have enough influence, a greater hold on the justice system, that consumers won't get the same deal they did before. The slow warping over time of copyright laws shows this trend quite clearly, methinks.
The argument, of course, is that this digital stuff is somehow different; in reality, it's only more effective at distribution, the fundamentals of being able to copy, etc are still the same, and the fact that (with the exception of Canada, for the moment) the issue is not being resolved the same way it was in previous technological iterations, well, that's a sign of the times a changin'.
You're probably right, but I have noticed audible differences in some shows (Cowboy Bebop for the most popular of them).
Bands that allow you to download their songs free of charge still exist, quite a few come to mind right off the bat.
There's always The Trews, who offer alot of their songs including alternative versions other than the ones on their main album . . . err, wait, the page is down right now.
Well, I remember Alice In Videoland offered actually all of their songs online in mp3 and . . . oh, the page doesn't seem to exist anymore at all.
Well, 8mm at least lets you stream all of their songs online . . . geez, I'm not really making my point here, am I? I swear bands still offer mp3s . . . well, at least Shocknina seems to do so, and they're a new band too. I guess the problem is, to be able to offer mp3s, you often have to be an independent artist, the record companies take exception to that kind of thing. Well, I mean, Trent Reznor released his last two singles in a form that one could even pull apart and remix easily, basically giving access to something akin to the source audio . . . but that's the kind of thing only a huge but eccentric artist like Nine Inch Nails can get away with.
Both get sketchy once they've gone from "theory" to "regulated system". Patents were supposed to help the little guy, but ended up becoming as a system bloated and high-maitenence, with the power falling to the side of whomever had the most power already (ie. corporations, who find it much easier, what with not being individual people, to muster up forces and influence) and thus increasing the differential between the big guys and little guys.
And, if the noises lately about regulating the internet start changing into action, the same story might happen there too (they have often already, in individual cases).
Whoa, wait, since when was I an anarchist?
Right now, because of the penetration that the idea of iPods has had on the general consciousness of the public, yeah, more iPods are selling than ever. Also, they've released really cheap versions, so people that have been waiting for them finally are buying.
:)
However, that doesn't mean that the fever is still going strong. It's a strong current business position, true, but whether they'll remain such hot commodities is another question. Right now they are the only ones most people have even heard about, iPods are synonymous with portable digital audio, and that's why people are buying them so damn much. But as far as the "omfg sew koool" factor goes, they're getting a bit . . . well, "stale" is not at all the right term, but they aren't piping hot anymore, the hype doesn't still burn the tongue. And people are, in fact, finally realizing that there are perfectly viable alternatives, and some of them actually have features and streamlined support rivaling the iPod.
Yeah yeah, argue that they still aren't there, but some of them are just plain better in some areas, even if they have other faults, and that's the key: the iPod isn't the only alternative. People are starting to compare them to Zen, iRiver, even some fancy new Samsungs, and that's the part where Apple is trying to hold on. People are actually comparing, instead of just automatically buying iPods. So even if they're still predominately buying iPods when the day is done regardless, Apple's position isn't as carved in stone as it was previously.
--------
Admitting my bias up front, though, since if anyone replies it'll probably include attacks, this being slashdot and whatnot: I really don't like iPods, in both technical and fashionable senses. Technically because they don't play the kind of audio I want (ogg-vorbis and flac) and require things I also would rather do without like iTunes, etc, and don't keep the files neat and tidy on the player, nooo, they're in random folders, grrrr, and a million little things like that. So, without the vertical integration of the iPod that sells many people (such as mac users, who are already using things compatible) the iPod starts to lose alot of ground in my books.
But then the fashionabilty. Oh, hell. I met one person last year who wouldn't have dared considering buying anything other than an iPod, even after admitting that others might be better in both price and practicality; they just weren't nearly as fashionable. What a worthless sheep. And that's just it; to me, iPods are just a mark of "ooh, look at me, I'm going with the flow." And so, if you disagree with my assesment and are certain that it can't possibly be objective, then go ahead and use ad hominem arguments
Easier to just use Hershies Kisses and some alcohol, or sometimes just a movie in a dark room . . . not that I intended things to work that way any of the times, that would be manipulative . . . luckily, I can honestly say that unitended things happen sometimes . . . ah, maybe the trick is not intending anything devious from the beginning? (Can I honestly say that, or am I lying to myself? hmmm....)
Parent, I wholeheartedly agree.
/. knows the kinds of things I'm talking about (like just queuing up multiple episodes, easy skipping, etc). Generally, I'm actually quite unimpressed with the lack of user-friendlyness of DVDs and whatnot; for CDs, it's just albums, but for DVDs I expect something less arcane. Oh, it's great for the average consumer, yada yada, but I've (yes, often illegally) seen it done in ways so much simpler for my needs (and since I have enough access to computers with s-video out, no advantage to having it on DVD players for me) I therefore can't quite abide by non-ripping ways.
Honestly, it's not like I don't own movies, music, etc . . . actually, I own a LOT. But I always rip the ones I have, if I haven't already downloaded them (and thus bought them because I liked them so much, and wanted to actually own them, for principle or posterity or 'cause they were on some crazy $1.50 sale or etc) simply because it's sooo much more convenient.
Comparing TV series saved on CD to DVD, if I'm watching on my computer, it's much easier to just pop in the disc and double-click on the episode, instead of having to actually navigate menus, wait while there's time delays, and so forth. And proper rips, I can just switch at a moments notice between normal audio and, say, a commentary track, so if I'm listening to the directors talking, and then I go "oh, yeah, I want to just re-watch that scene in normal right now" I can actually do that in seconds instead of the convoluted process in DVDs.
It's the difference that comes with having a format that's the raw media (relatively speaking) instead of it tucked away inside of virtual packaging. These points could go on and on, but I'm sure anyone reading
And so, yeah, for these movies it just makes sense for them, what with being in public domain and all, to be so easily available for download and distribution as rips.
Hey, even if the industry complains "free movies cut into our profit!", well them, you'll just have to make things that are new and interesting enough that people will want to buy the new ones even while they can get the classics for free. Hah, now that might make you get off your asses and do something worthwhile, now you have to compete with your own past!