Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
"Dalrton" said from the first season that was never the case. The show was real. They were not dead the entire time.
To hammer that home further, Christian Shephard said it several times at the end. Everything that we saw was real. It happened.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It is *very* simple actually. And those answers came a few episodes early.
The heart of the island is filled with energy. It is the same energy that fuels life. Jacob guarded that energy and used it to protect candidates so they didn't age, and healed miraculously. As a punishment for someone trying to steal that energy, they would be turned into the "smoke monster", which could only wear the faces of dead bodies on the island.
Go back and watch the pilot. The show was always an allegory about good and evil. The island was split time and time again into two groups of conflict, and those conflicts were smaller facets of a larger conflict.
Did you watch Star Wars and complain that the Force was never explained?
The only reason people expect more from Lost is because when there was a reveal, it was so rewarding. It showed how deep the show was, how well thought it was, and how much meaning there laid in so many aspects of the story. People complain that they didn't get more of that instead of celebrating on how many great moments of revelation there were.
Watch JJ Abram's "Alias" some time. The show was predicated on revealing twists, but that show really was made up as they went along and became ludicrous very quick. Instead of having twists for the sake of twists, Lost was amazingly consistent while still surprising.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
It was the journey not the destination. Perhaps the single most hated episode in the entire run of the show aired a few weeks ago when the writers did exactly what fans had been clamoring for, and did an episode of heavy exposition that laid out several answers clearly. It isn't nearly as entertaining as people suspect.
The show answered most of the questions people had. It didn't answer all of them, but removing the final layers of mystery and spoon feeding you answers would only make it worse.
You can pick up a mystery novel and skip right to the final chapter, but you destroy the entire purpose of reading the book. It isn't fun. The point is to enjoy the ride.
Foxconn makes components for HP, Dell and many other major manufacturers. Was this the ninth suicide for an iPhone-specific employee, or Foxconn on the whole?
Compiz had its first official release in early 2006. There were early builds before then. Compiz and Beryl merged in Feb 2007.
Vista was released to the masses in January of 2007.
So Compiz beat them to release by a year. And if you're "ready for primetime" comment suggests you were waiting for some great release, the Compiz-Fusion merged release a month after Vista shows they were more than ready for primetime far before then.
Spamming unncessary prompts is poor design. As is prompting people but not providing them any information.
Instead of just telling me that SOMETHING needs escalation, give me enough information to make an informed decision on whether or not I should escalate.
It isn't an issue of whether or not I'm carrying porn on the laptop. If I have an encrypted laptop, I can't hand over the password to anyone, and yet Australia will demand I do exactly that.
I use it daily, and have been using it since the first beta.
I have a hardware RAID that Windows 7 took a crap on. The RAID couldn't repair itself for some crazy reason, and these were brand new hard drives that I had been using less than a month. This is when I discovered that you couldn't do a repair install anymore. This was in the beta days.
I have a copy of Windows 7 Home and Windows 7 Ultimate at home. I run Ultimate on my gaming desktop, and the RAID took a crap once again, which can't repair for some crazy reason. I've replaced the motherboard, and RMAed the hard drive that was supposedly bad. In Linux the two hard drives look the same.
I'm pretty sure the problem is with Windows loading the RAID driver.
I want to delete a shortcut on MY desktop, which prompts a UAC dialog, which I must address, despite the fact that I'm not changing the desktop for other users. After I confirm that, Windows prompts me yet again, asking if this is something I really want to do.
How can you defend that design?
Unncessary prompts like that just convince people to either turn it off, or just confirm everything.
What if my laptop is encrypted because of PCI compliance? What if it is against the law in my country for me to compromise confidential information, but now Australia demands to see it? Does this mean American businessmen can't travel ao Australia with company laptops?
Supposedly they designed Windows 7 with tablets in mind and added multi-touch support. However the only company I know that was working on a Windows 7 tablet (HP) has since dropped Windows 7, and instead bought out Palm so they could get WebOS.
There are many things to like about 7, but it retains all the usability regressions of Vista. Microsoft wasn't willing to admit Vista was a mistake, so they weren't willing to fix these issues.
UAC is still annoying to the point that I disable it completely. It still takes me longer to accomplish the same tasks. Aero is nice, but still a pale imitation of Compiz/Kwin. DirectX 11 has been completely ignored by the game industry.
Windows 7 has barfed on my RAID twice.
Once Microsoft's latest release claims it can now support patching without reboots, but literally every patch Tuesday since the first beta have still required reboots.
I run Windows 7 because it is the latest release, but I wouldn't say I have nothing but praise for it.
Innovation? Part of the big problem was that there weren't killer features worth upgrading for. You could cite Aero, but it was a massive resource hog and is chasing the tail of Mac OS X and Linux. It wasn't innovation.
In so many areas Vista made needless changes that weren't improvments or innovations. It seems like they had no direction and needed to shuffle things around enough to convince people this was a new Windows release.
Windows Repair Install is gone with no apparent reason.
Every major ocnfiguration dialog is moved to another location. You need more clicks to accomplish the same tasks. This was a major usability regression with no apparent reason.
Vista's failure was because Microsoft had no idea what it wanted Vista to be. It is a failing of leadership. Leadership also failed in not reaching out to hardware manufacturers and working closer with them. ATI and NVidia had trouble working with the new Vista driver API (which was a mess). OEMs had trouble figuring out what exactly constituted "Vista capable" hardware.
It isn't because you spent too much innovating. It is because you spent too much time running around in circles.
I remember a few years back when Bill Gates said that Microsoft had been sued over patents, but never sued anyone else. They insisted that like IBM and other big companies, they had massive patent portfolios just to protect themselves. But then they sued TomTom over FAT patents and now this. What happened to Microsoft doesn't believe in suing over patents? Is this indicative of Gates handing the reigns over to Ballmer, the guy who threatened to sue anyone running Linux?
I'm a parent. I loathe those who victimize children on any level. But humans have sexual fetishes. As a society, we deem sexual fetishes involving children to be outside the social norm, and even vile. I get that. But to an extent, we can't help having fetishes. Furthermore, we have a vicious double standard at play here reviling people who lust for children, while daily marketing children as sexual icons.
What is the difference between a 16 year old Brittany Spears selling herself as a sexual icon, and child pornographers looking at "barely legal" porn of 18 year old girls trying to look younger? Both are legal and accepted in society, because apparently no actual victimization of children occured.
Pushing these people out of your community just means they have to drive a little further to get to your kids. It is an idiotic concept that does nothing to protect children. It is burying your head in the sand, not trying to understand or solve the problem.
The solution lies with studying the condition, perhaps treating it with drugs/therapy, or perhaps finding harmless analogs. For instance, if they can only be sated by watching porngraphy with children, then allow them to watch anime depicting children. That is really no different than "barely legal" porn, in which the illusion of children is created, but no children are harmed.
No one wants to defend pedophiles because they are so reviled, but these laws demanding pedophiles live outside of towns is pretty damned unconstitutional. Most of these laws are retroactive (ex post facto) and also constitute double jeopardy. But why the hell should anyone care about upholding the Constitution?
If Fox failed to try and contact anyone from Wikipedia for a quote, then that is irresponsible journalism. You should try to gather all the information possible before reporting. But if I was a news editor and I got a confirmation that someone did file a formal charge with the FBI on child pornography, that constitutes a valid story. Failure to report such a story can also be construed as editorializing the news.
You're suggesting I can make up a lie, and end it with "just sayin'" and that is the same as a news agency reporting on facts.
If Fox News completely out of the blue said Wikipedia was full of child porn, then your analogy might hold water. But Fox News in this case is reporting on the facts that a formal accusation to the FBI was made by someone else.
I won't defend Fox News (or any overtly biased news source) on the whole. But in this case, they are reporting facts.
Slashdot Mirror
"Dalrton" said from the first season that was never the case. The show was real. They were not dead the entire time.
To hammer that home further, Christian Shephard said it several times at the end. Everything that we saw was real. It happened.
It is *very* simple actually. And those answers came a few episodes early.
The heart of the island is filled with energy. It is the same energy that fuels life. Jacob guarded that energy and used it to protect candidates so they didn't age, and healed miraculously. As a punishment for someone trying to steal that energy, they would be turned into the "smoke monster", which could only wear the faces of dead bodies on the island.
Go back and watch the pilot. The show was always an allegory about good and evil. The island was split time and time again into two groups of conflict, and those conflicts were smaller facets of a larger conflict.
Did you watch Star Wars and complain that the Force was never explained?
The only reason people expect more from Lost is because when there was a reveal, it was so rewarding. It showed how deep the show was, how well thought it was, and how much meaning there laid in so many aspects of the story. People complain that they didn't get more of that instead of celebrating on how many great moments of revelation there were.
Watch JJ Abram's "Alias" some time. The show was predicated on revealing twists, but that show really was made up as they went along and became ludicrous very quick. Instead of having twists for the sake of twists, Lost was amazingly consistent while still surprising.
It was the journey not the destination. Perhaps the single most hated episode in the entire run of the show aired a few weeks ago when the writers did exactly what fans had been clamoring for, and did an episode of heavy exposition that laid out several answers clearly. It isn't nearly as entertaining as people suspect.
The show answered most of the questions people had. It didn't answer all of them, but removing the final layers of mystery and spoon feeding you answers would only make it worse.
You can pick up a mystery novel and skip right to the final chapter, but you destroy the entire purpose of reading the book. It isn't fun. The point is to enjoy the ride.
Foxconn makes components for HP, Dell and many other major manufacturers. Was this the ninth suicide for an iPhone-specific employee, or Foxconn on the whole?
Before you can return to your show, see if you can PuNcH tHe MoNkEy and win $500!!!11!!!1
Sabayon shipped with Compiz by default in January of 06, a full year before Vista.
openSUSE shipped with it December of 06. I think Ubuntu had Compiz on by default with 7.04, but I'm not a big Ubuntu guy.
It should be noted, that Compiz also has vastly more features than Aero. Again, it shipped earlier, and did more.
Compiz had its first official release in early 2006. There were early builds before then. Compiz and Beryl merged in Feb 2007.
Vista was released to the masses in January of 2007.
So Compiz beat them to release by a year. And if you're "ready for primetime" comment suggests you were waiting for some great release, the Compiz-Fusion merged release a month after Vista shows they were more than ready for primetime far before then.
Which one of us is guilty of revisionism?
Spamming unncessary prompts is poor design. As is prompting people but not providing them any information.
Instead of just telling me that SOMETHING needs escalation, give me enough information to make an informed decision on whether or not I should escalate.
No it isn't. UAC just trains them to confirm everything.
I agree. I really do. This is what everyone SHOULD do.
Sadly, I haven't seen a Fortune 500 company that operates like this yet.
It isn't an issue of whether or not I'm carrying porn on the laptop. If I have an encrypted laptop, I can't hand over the password to anyone, and yet Australia will demand I do exactly that.
I use it daily, and have been using it since the first beta.
I have a hardware RAID that Windows 7 took a crap on. The RAID couldn't repair itself for some crazy reason, and these were brand new hard drives that I had been using less than a month. This is when I discovered that you couldn't do a repair install anymore. This was in the beta days.
I have a copy of Windows 7 Home and Windows 7 Ultimate at home. I run Ultimate on my gaming desktop, and the RAID took a crap once again, which can't repair for some crazy reason. I've replaced the motherboard, and RMAed the hard drive that was supposedly bad. In Linux the two hard drives look the same.
I'm pretty sure the problem is with Windows loading the RAID driver.
I want to delete a shortcut on MY desktop, which prompts a UAC dialog, which I must address, despite the fact that I'm not changing the desktop for other users. After I confirm that, Windows prompts me yet again, asking if this is something I really want to do.
How can you defend that design?
Unncessary prompts like that just convince people to either turn it off, or just confirm everything.
The "Dick Tracy watch" from the comics (and movie) is a two-way video phone. This isn't a Dick Tracy watch.
What if my laptop is encrypted because of PCI compliance? What if it is against the law in my country for me to compromise confidential information, but now Australia demands to see it? Does this mean American businessmen can't travel ao Australia with company laptops?
Or will Australia not search encrypted laptops?
Censorship is not only morally wrong, it is ineffective. You chase your tail wasting time and money often to accomplish nothing.
When will people learn?
Supposedly they designed Windows 7 with tablets in mind and added multi-touch support. However the only company I know that was working on a Windows 7 tablet (HP) has since dropped Windows 7, and instead bought out Palm so they could get WebOS.
There are many things to like about 7, but it retains all the usability regressions of Vista. Microsoft wasn't willing to admit Vista was a mistake, so they weren't willing to fix these issues.
UAC is still annoying to the point that I disable it completely. It still takes me longer to accomplish the same tasks. Aero is nice, but still a pale imitation of Compiz/Kwin. DirectX 11 has been completely ignored by the game industry.
Windows 7 has barfed on my RAID twice.
Once Microsoft's latest release claims it can now support patching without reboots, but literally every patch Tuesday since the first beta have still required reboots.
I run Windows 7 because it is the latest release, but I wouldn't say I have nothing but praise for it.
Innovation? Part of the big problem was that there weren't killer features worth upgrading for. You could cite Aero, but it was a massive resource hog and is chasing the tail of Mac OS X and Linux. It wasn't innovation.
In so many areas Vista made needless changes that weren't improvments or innovations. It seems like they had no direction and needed to shuffle things around enough to convince people this was a new Windows release.
Windows Repair Install is gone with no apparent reason.
Every major ocnfiguration dialog is moved to another location. You need more clicks to accomplish the same tasks. This was a major usability regression with no apparent reason.
Vista's failure was because Microsoft had no idea what it wanted Vista to be. It is a failing of leadership. Leadership also failed in not reaching out to hardware manufacturers and working closer with them. ATI and NVidia had trouble working with the new Vista driver API (which was a mess). OEMs had trouble figuring out what exactly constituted "Vista capable" hardware.
It isn't because you spent too much innovating. It is because you spent too much time running around in circles.
What history?
Are you referring to the entire company history of Microsoft in which they never sued anyone over patents from 1975 to 2009?
That is why I've suggested this seems to be a newer trend.
I remember a few years back when Bill Gates said that Microsoft had been sued over patents, but never sued anyone else. They insisted that like IBM and other big companies, they had massive patent portfolios just to protect themselves. But then they sued TomTom over FAT patents and now this. What happened to Microsoft doesn't believe in suing over patents? Is this indicative of Gates handing the reigns over to Ballmer, the guy who threatened to sue anyone running Linux?
Is it Coppertone? Isn't there a sunscreen bottle that features a dog pulling down the bikini bottom of a little girl, revealing her butt?
Child pornography found on every grocery store shelf!
I'm a parent. I loathe those who victimize children on any level. But humans have sexual fetishes. As a society, we deem sexual fetishes involving children to be outside the social norm, and even vile. I get that. But to an extent, we can't help having fetishes. Furthermore, we have a vicious double standard at play here reviling people who lust for children, while daily marketing children as sexual icons.
What is the difference between a 16 year old Brittany Spears selling herself as a sexual icon, and child pornographers looking at "barely legal" porn of 18 year old girls trying to look younger? Both are legal and accepted in society, because apparently no actual victimization of children occured.
Pushing these people out of your community just means they have to drive a little further to get to your kids. It is an idiotic concept that does nothing to protect children. It is burying your head in the sand, not trying to understand or solve the problem.
The solution lies with studying the condition, perhaps treating it with drugs/therapy, or perhaps finding harmless analogs. For instance, if they can only be sated by watching porngraphy with children, then allow them to watch anime depicting children. That is really no different than "barely legal" porn, in which the illusion of children is created, but no children are harmed.
No one wants to defend pedophiles because they are so reviled, but these laws demanding pedophiles live outside of towns is pretty damned unconstitutional. Most of these laws are retroactive (ex post facto) and also constitute double jeopardy. But why the hell should anyone care about upholding the Constitution?
If Fox failed to try and contact anyone from Wikipedia for a quote, then that is irresponsible journalism. You should try to gather all the information possible before reporting. But if I was a news editor and I got a confirmation that someone did file a formal charge with the FBI on child pornography, that constitutes a valid story. Failure to report such a story can also be construed as editorializing the news.
Your analogy fails.
You're suggesting I can make up a lie, and end it with "just sayin'" and that is the same as a news agency reporting on facts.
If Fox News completely out of the blue said Wikipedia was full of child porn, then your analogy might hold water. But Fox News in this case is reporting on the facts that a formal accusation to the FBI was made by someone else.
I won't defend Fox News (or any overtly biased news source) on the whole. But in this case, they are reporting facts.