Even "Crying Game" didn't surprise me because I recognized the actor from "Stargate".
You must have seen them out-of-order as "The Crying Game" was released in 1992 and "Stargate" in 1994. If you'd seen them as released, you might have been more surprised.
I'm not really going to debate this with someone who goes by the name "sumdumass". Seriously, with a name like that, you probably work for Bush (or are Bush).:-)
There simply is NOT enough terrorist activity or threat to warrant this kind of constitutional stomping authority.
Agree and futhermore...
<soapbox>
It doesn't really matter how much, the ends don't justify the means - despite what the Bush administration would have us believe. The Constitution is there to protect us from our Government and from those citizens who want to limit the rights of other citizens. As far as the "War on Terror", if the US has to behave badly and/or contrary to our core principles to "win", then we lose and they win.
</soapbox>
Anything that falls into them may eventually come out.... They also support Stephen Hawking's reluctant admission that information couldn't be destroyed by black holes.
/.ers have known all along. Information wants to be free...
The project's agreement with Microsoft involves no payment, and Microsoft will not join One Laptop Per Child's board. 'We've stayed very pure,' Mr. Negroponte said.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
You soul is over there Mr. Negroponte. In the light. Now, just out of reach. Foolish man, Microsoft has never helped anyone but itself.
folks have a twisted version of the Universe in which critics should not criticize
Actually I agree with your sentiment and perhaps I should have been more clear. There's a difference between the story, how well it's told and how well it's produced. I've seen many movies with good stories, but poor mechanics and as well as crappy stories with good eye candy.
Ideally, you'd want a good story that's been told and shot well. Push to shove, I prefer good stories and characters over production quality. Usually you get a mix.
What I'd like is for critics to separate the story and characters from whether it's realistic or not and how well the movie's been made and critique them separately. While I'm asking, I'd like critics to keep their personal feelings about an actor (or director) out of the critique as well.
You just need to find a critic or two that you usually agree with.
Or one who can simply describe the movie and let me decide if I think I'll enjoy it. More often the critic gets caught up in debating what the movie is vs. what it should have been - blah wasn't realistic, etc...
Sometimes you simply have to accept the movie as it is and decide if you like the story and characters as they are without regard to any expectations. Suspend your disbelief and dive it.
For example: "Iron Man" wasn't believable on many levels and several critics disliked Paltrow's performance as weak, but I really enjoyed the movie and liked her as Pepper Potts none-the-less.
Otherwise what you're saying is that they have the right to search it, you have the right to refuse, and they have no legal powers to try to enforce their right - in other words, they don't have the right at all.
Just being a little picky here, but let's not confuse power/authority and rights. The government has power, people have rights. Let me fix the above:
Otherwise what you're saying is that they have the authority to search it, you have the right to refuse, and they have no legal power to try to enforce their authority - in other words, they don't have the power at all.
It the supernova went off 140 years ago at a distance of 26,000 LY, there would be no way for us to know about it.
You're missing the point. Obviously, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has a working Time Machine which they've been keeping secret - until now. (Someone's getting fired...!)
MythTV's removal of commercials is less than perfect.
MythTV can be set to simply flag, but not remove commercials and uses (I think) about 5 algorithms to detect commercials. It also has a settable time limit to not skip beyond. I think MythTV checks for things like fade-to-black, station logo (usually displayed during shows, but not commercials), the ratings logo (usually displayed when a show returns) and I can remember the others.
All in all, my MythTV box does a perfect job of flagging commercials with "well behaved" shows / channels and a pretty good job on all others.
It is a gross oversimplification to say that once in public, one should have no expectation of privacy.
Tell that to the various cities with CCTVs positioned everywhere.
Certainly would you see the privacy implications if Google were to attach a GPS unit to your car and record where you drive -- sure, you're driving in public, but that does not mean it would be okay for Google to record detailed records of your trips.
I'll give you points for squeaking in an automotive analogy, but it's flawed. They cannot legally attach something to your car without your permission. They can, however, legally follow you around with GPS in their car (on public roads) and record your trips.
I'm not sure why people are complaining about this. People have been yelling "there's no privacy on the internet; get over it" for years. Now they're bitching that there should be privacy on the sidewalk?
Someone else in this thread wrote:
What if a Google camera catches you:...buying drugs?...walking into your ex girlfriend's house?...entering an abortion clinic?...picking your nose?...hanging out in front of a gay bar?...attending a communist party meeting?...golfing on Sunday?...doing something you don't want your friends and neighbors finding out about?
My response: too bad. That's what the phrase "in public" means. Don't want someone to see you doing something? Don't do it or be sure you're actually in a private situation - doors and curtains closed.
Sorry, but people have to accept a little personal responsibility here.
If something can be seen from a "reasonable" public position, it's not private.
Google has begun blurring faces in its Street View service, which has spawned privacy concerns since its introduction last year.
My understanding is that people in public should have no expectations of privacy. Or is that just a U.S. thing? Furthermore, as their algorithms get better, will Google skip blurring the faces of famous people? They certainly have no expectations of privacy in public.
Charter can display advertisements that are more likely to be related to your interests. You will not see more ads, but some of the ads you see will be more relevant to you. Browsing the web can become more like flipping through your favorite magazine, where you see ads that are appealing to you and enhance your enjoyment and the utility of the experience.
Ya, I don't want to see *any* ads, unless I choose to look for them. I want to surf the Internet "as it is", without any "help" from Charter trying to "enhance my enjoyment".
I understand that vendors want an Internet presence, and many want it done cheaply, meaning Ad supported. But the Internet isn't really about advertising and selling things, it's about Information (which may include the former).
ISPs and Vendors, please stop trying to turn the Net into an interactive version of broadcast TV. If you can't make money without interfering, then go away.
So, if I swing my key chain containing my RFID credit card fobs in the vicinity of the checkout reader... how do I make it scan my American Express(r) card fob instead of my Visa(r) card fob instead of my...
You're giving the CC vendors too much credit (so to speak). Hell Blockbuster sent me a little "key chain" card - like I rent soooo often that I need the damn thing on my key chain. Or the Exxon SpeedPass fob... They're thinking of the advertising potential. Companies only offer things that they think benefit them. The customer is an after thought.
So, please tell me again what the advantage of having an RFID chip in my credit card(s) is?
It's not - I agree with you.
Given the choice, I'd much prefer sliding my mag stripe through the slot.
However, I don't see the big benefit of avoiding physical contact with my payment device.
I think the (only real) benefit is the ability to get away from card-shaped items and allow key-fobs and the like. Technically, the RFID chip could be put in a ring, bracelet, or on a key chain, etc...
I'm not saying all this is/would be better and I certainly don't have any problem yanking out and swiping my CC when I want to buy something.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have seen them out-of-order as "The Crying Game" was released in 1992 and "Stargate" in 1994. If you'd seen them as released, you might have been more surprised.
I'm not really going to debate this with someone who goes by the name "sumdumass". Seriously, with a name like that, you probably work for Bush (or are Bush). :-)
By-the-way, the answers are: No (you look like a moron) and (sigh, not again) no.
Agree and futhermore...
<soapbox>
It doesn't really matter how much, the ends don't justify the means - despite what the Bush administration would have us believe. The Constitution is there to protect us from our Government and from those citizens who want to limit the rights of other citizens. As far as the "War on Terror", if the US has to behave badly and/or contrary to our core principles to "win", then we lose and they win.
</soapbox>
It will also be renamed HFCS to increase marketability. :-)
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
You soul is over there Mr. Negroponte. In the light. Now, just out of reach. Foolish man, Microsoft has never helped anyone but itself.
Actually I agree with your sentiment and perhaps I should have been more clear. There's a difference between the story, how well it's told and how well it's produced. I've seen many movies with good stories, but poor mechanics and as well as crappy stories with good eye candy.
Ideally, you'd want a good story that's been told and shot well. Push to shove, I prefer good stories and characters over production quality. Usually you get a mix.
What I'd like is for critics to separate the story and characters from whether it's realistic or not and how well the movie's been made and critique them separately. While I'm asking, I'd like critics to keep their personal feelings about an actor (or director) out of the critique as well.
Or one who can simply describe the movie and let me decide if I think I'll enjoy it. More often the critic gets caught up in debating what the movie is vs. what it should have been - blah wasn't realistic, etc...
Sometimes you simply have to accept the movie as it is and decide if you like the story and characters as they are without regard to any expectations. Suspend your disbelief and dive it.
For example: "Iron Man" wasn't believable on many levels and several critics disliked Paltrow's performance as weak, but I really enjoyed the movie and liked her as Pepper Potts none-the-less.
Just being a little picky here, but let's not confuse power/authority and rights. The government has power, people have rights. Let me fix the above:
Subtle, but different.
Dark clothing + ski masks + pick-up truck @ 3am ...
You're missing the point. Obviously, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has a working Time Machine which they've been keeping secret - until now. (Someone's getting fired...!)
MythTV can be set to simply flag, but not remove commercials and uses (I think) about 5 algorithms to detect commercials. It also has a settable time limit to not skip beyond. I think MythTV checks for things like fade-to-black, station logo (usually displayed during shows, but not commercials), the ratings logo (usually displayed when a show returns) and I can remember the others.
All in all, my MythTV box does a perfect job of flagging commercials with "well behaved" shows / channels and a pretty good job on all others.
As opposed to "non-elective" transsexual surgery?
Actually, "high-impedance" is how'd I'd describe the alive state for most cats - yikes!
You need to widen your interpretation. I've learned a LOT of things from Microsoft and Windows. Nothing good, but a lot none the less. :-)
Tell that to the various cities with CCTVs positioned everywhere.
Certainly would you see the privacy implications if Google were to attach a GPS unit to your car and record where you drive -- sure, you're driving in public, but that does not mean it would be okay for Google to record detailed records of your trips.
I'll give you points for squeaking in an automotive analogy, but it's flawed. They cannot legally attach something to your car without your permission. They can, however, legally follow you around with GPS in their car (on public roads) and record your trips.
I'm not sure why people are complaining about this. People have been yelling "there's no privacy on the internet; get over it" for years. Now they're bitching that there should be privacy on the sidewalk?
Someone else in this thread wrote:
My response: too bad. That's what the phrase "in public" means. Don't want someone to see you doing something? Don't do it or be sure you're actually in a private situation - doors and curtains closed.Sorry, but people have to accept a little personal responsibility here. If something can be seen from a "reasonable" public position, it's not private.
My understanding is that people in public should have no expectations of privacy. Or is that just a U.S. thing? Furthermore, as their algorithms get better, will Google skip blurring the faces of famous people? They certainly have no expectations of privacy in public.
I have life-size map of the US. The scale says "1 mile = 1 mile".
When people ask where I live, I say "E5".
[Thank you Steven Wright.]
Ya, I don't want to see *any* ads, unless I choose to look for them. I want to surf the Internet "as it is", without any "help" from Charter trying to "enhance my enjoyment".
I understand that vendors want an Internet presence, and many want it done cheaply, meaning Ad supported. But the Internet isn't really about advertising and selling things, it's about Information (which may include the former).
ISPs and Vendors, please stop trying to turn the Net into an interactive version of broadcast TV. If you can't make money without interfering, then go away.
[For you youngsters: s/ballast/mother/g;]
You're giving the CC vendors too much credit (so to speak). Hell Blockbuster sent me a little "key chain" card - like I rent soooo often that I need the damn thing on my key chain. Or the Exxon SpeedPass fob... They're thinking of the advertising potential. Companies only offer things that they think benefit them. The customer is an after thought.
So, please tell me again what the advantage of having an RFID chip in my credit card(s) is?
It's not - I agree with you.
Given the choice, I'd much prefer sliding my mag stripe through the slot.
I've been telling my girlfriend since we met.
I think the (only real) benefit is the ability to get away from card-shaped items and allow key-fobs and the like. Technically, the RFID chip could be put in a ring, bracelet, or on a key chain, etc...
I'm not saying all this is/would be better and I certainly don't have any problem yanking out and swiping my CC when I want to buy something.