well, none of that is a surprise, it comes across very clearly in the films. i wasn't arguing that they didn't have reasons, but, primarily, addressing the gp who opined that the movies were faithful except for changes made for time.
that said, the reasons you cite only demonstrate to me that the filmmakers didn't understand the nobility. they felt that the nobility was boring (or, didn't understand the interest), and required doubt and conflict to spice it up. as a result, i think they almost completely cut out the nobility dreamt of by tolkien. there is the humble nobility of sam, but little of the pure-and-powerful nobility of the books. of all the noble and pure characters in the books, the only one that i think survived the trip to celluloid was gandalf. everyone else was rendered...more human. i guess i just prefer my fantasy a little less grounded in human failings.
b/c i was the only person forgoing the use of capitalization here? it's too much for you to read something properly spelled and punctuated, with proper grammer, but lacking capitals? the comment directly below yours followed that same lack of convention, and that's without taking one second of my time to catalog the other abuses to bog-standard english present here. but since you were trolling for an insult, i'll honor your request: go crawl back off into your putrid, dank little hole you call a home, and come back when you have something fucking substantive to say.
turning faramir into a flawed human almost like his brother instead of a noble character was done for time? making the elves and elrond out to be cowards was faithful to the original text? aragorn had to be pushed to be king, he didn't *always* recognize it as his birthright?
jackson did an excellent job creating the world of lotr, but he fails utterly to understand the nobility in the books. he only can conceive of the hobbits as the heroes, doesn't understand or was incapable of portraying the unswerving nobility of aragorn, the rangers, and the elves. if all he did was shorten the books, he would have nothing but my utmost admiration.
otoh, the hobbit is a more folksy book, and those grander themes are only hinted at, so mayhap it's better suited to his talents.
Yes, someone at that IP address made some ideologically slanted edits. However, if you go and look at the talk page for that IP address, you will note that there are *many* warnings which have been issued to that user. If you go further, and take a second to look at the pages it was being warned about vandalizing, several of the 'bad' edits are things like "Tom Sucks!" and other edits which were almost certainly made by interns, not at the behest of some nefarious Representative but out of mundane immaturity. So, while a serious, ideologically slanted edit like the one highlighted in the summary may well be the result of government misdeeds, it is clear that there are plenty of people who are capable of editing from that location, and that it is not provable that the edits were...'government' sanctioned.
I would love the search engines to come up with a better way to filter spam. I totally agree on the "this is spam" button. There's probably multiple ways they could accomplish it, everything from only giving you 'mod points' for a limited time period, randomly, to requiring you to have an authenticated install of a google app on your machine to be allowed to mod. Of course nothing is foolproof, but I think you could make it very effectively difficult to corrupt the results with bots. Maybe you could simply flag the voted sites and have other random users who are asked to volunteer a few seconds to judge if the site is spam. I'd gladly volunteer some of my time to an effort like that. Here's hoping!
I think you're being a little narrow--society doesn't want to protect just children from the real world, it wants to protect adults from the real world too. It's more blatant with kids, but most western societies have adopted more and more of a nanny-state mentality, where the government passes laws to restrict freedoms in the name of "security" and "health". I, for one, don't want to live in a society where risk is eliminated and I am protected from all possible harm. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority on this one (however sizable that minority may be), for the march of protective legislation and self-censorship goes on.
there's nothing imaginary about it, except that no one has done it. you made an overreaching claim about whether it was or wasn't possible to emulate your beloved, fancy computer; people pointed out that, in fact, it was; and you have proceeded to vainly attempt to discredit them by making snide comments equating pragmatism with peoples manhood and casting vague aspersions on computing theory. nonetheless, it would, in fact, be possible to do with a real computer, even a real hand-held, attached to finite storage. there's nothing imaginary about the certitude that it *could* be done. sure, it would be worthless for anything other than the million-dollar contract you've generously offered, and completely inefficient, but is it possible? yes. which, i think, was all you originally asked for. something along the lines of "make it as inefficient as you want"? i'm not sure what originally offended you and drove you to make your ill-conceived offer to someone noting the ability of any computing platform to be emulated, but your indignation doesn't make it false.
yes, the suggestion that someone had put a diablo engine in a smart was very intriguing, but immediately disappointing when i saw the video. funny confusion though.:)
you're being just as glib as you accuse others of being. you admit the impossibility of disproving something, and then say "do it anyway"??
there's a cliched phrase that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. in science, the absence of proof is "disproof". bottom line: it's not true until there is proof that it is true.
so, if you actually took a scientific viewpoint on this subject (which you seem somewhat disinclined to, though i can't be certain), you would realize that tesla and/or his believers have already done what you request. they have failed to furnish the proof (or the blueprint for the proof), and therefore have, in effect, disproved their own claims.
the skills one would use to nick the grade-book can be used for more nefarious ends as well. given all the intents and damages physical theft can entail, how come all thefts aren't prosecuted with the same blanket "felony theft" with hefty maximum sentence? hrm?
the fact of the matter is, the prosecutor is piling on, and it seems likely they are taking advantage of the very real public discomfort with the computerization of everything. it is still a very fair argument that either there should be more categories of the crimes they are charged with (say, misdemeanor versions?) or that the prosecutor shouldn't be trying to find every possible angle to charge them with.
there's no difference whatsoever. presumably, the grade-book would be located in an office or desk which has other records and information present. someone stealing said grade-book would "have access" to all the other information in the office. the existence of the other information is immaterial if they didn't access or abuse it.
I must confess to being confused by that one. I understand (and abhor patent trolls) suing the manufacturers for not licensing the technology, but the storefront? Just going after someone with deep-pockets, or what? It's not actually a tenant of US law that you, as a seller, have to verify that all your wares are correctly licensed with clear patents/copyrights is it? How could a store ever be sure that all the electronic components in, say, the computers it sells are dispute-free?
It's clear from the photos, especially the first one, what is going on here. "We don't know who struck first - us or them - but it was us who scorched the sky."
because i want to do complex photo editing on an iPhone!? no thanks. if i ever get heavily into authoring icons, that might be just the right size for using photoshop on the iphone...
long winded much? The point I see here is that the person with the complaint linked to NON-objectionable material (AKA NOT violating TOS). At some later point, said link died, then became a link to objectionable material. So...that seems to be an issue to me, that a company would expect you to constantly vet any and all links you might have made at any point in time to verify that they are still non-objectionable. To me, that's a big WTF? Maybe you see that as a non-issue, but I think slashdot readers are being well-informed to learn that one (and where there's one there's usually more) company is holding users responsible for links not just when they are made but ad infinitum. Given that many people have blogs which span YEARS, it's hardly reasonable for anyone to expect that those people will continually sift through their old entries, vetting all the links for TOS compliance. Does that help you understand the significance of the story?
it wasn't digg or slashdot which posted the AACS key, but individuals who would probably *not* get sued. likewise, i wouldn't expect the chinese to post the pics, but people like you and me, individuals who would probably *not* face worse fates....
will people post the pictures all over in a rebellion, a la AACS? or will all the image providers cave a la google.cn, where an image search for tiananmen massacre returns pictures of puppies and gerbils...?
i'm sure they're legally well within their rights, but that doesn't mean it's smart.
a) blogging in No Way Shape Or Form is going to realistically compete with the more lucrative, more important broadcast media. so, assuming they had their own official blog, they might be able to make some spare change from advertisers, but it's not going to be anywhere close to the other media rights. i can't imagine reading someone's live blog in lieu of watching the game on tv, if at all possible.
b) blogs from the games are a great way to encourage grass-roots fandom. especially if you have multiple providers for the same game, some local, some not, it adds a colorful aspect that can only help boost the enthusiasm for fans.
c) prohibiting the live blogs is *only* going to annoy the people who would have read them.
personally, i was very disappointed to see they had prohibited the live-blogs. i'd really enjoyed going back and reading cstv.com 's live-blogs from the regional round of the tournament, and it was disappointing they wouldn't be able to provide the same service for the super-regionals. i think it's just another example of a corporation having a knee-jerk negative reaction that doesn't take into account what might actually be best for the customers.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe. but check out the "Vintage Computing Products" section on ebay. it's not pennies and nickels....
the time frame may be different, but those old computers/game systems/calculators will be "antique" and "collectible" too.
which doesn't make it a good analogy.
well, none of that is a surprise, it comes across very clearly in the films. i wasn't arguing that they didn't have reasons, but, primarily, addressing the gp who opined that the movies were faithful except for changes made for time.
that said, the reasons you cite only demonstrate to me that the filmmakers didn't understand the nobility. they felt that the nobility was boring (or, didn't understand the interest), and required doubt and conflict to spice it up. as a result, i think they almost completely cut out the nobility dreamt of by tolkien. there is the humble nobility of sam, but little of the pure-and-powerful nobility of the books. of all the noble and pure characters in the books, the only one that i think survived the trip to celluloid was gandalf. everyone else was rendered...more human. i guess i just prefer my fantasy a little less grounded in human failings.
b/c i was the only person forgoing the use of capitalization here? it's too much for you to read something properly spelled and punctuated, with proper grammer, but lacking capitals? the comment directly below yours followed that same lack of convention, and that's without taking one second of my time to catalog the other abuses to bog-standard english present here. but since you were trolling for an insult, i'll honor your request: go crawl back off into your putrid, dank little hole you call a home, and come back when you have something fucking substantive to say.
turning faramir into a flawed human almost like his brother instead of a noble character was done for time? making the elves and elrond out to be cowards was faithful to the original text? aragorn had to be pushed to be king, he didn't *always* recognize it as his birthright? jackson did an excellent job creating the world of lotr, but he fails utterly to understand the nobility in the books. he only can conceive of the hobbits as the heroes, doesn't understand or was incapable of portraying the unswerving nobility of aragorn, the rangers, and the elves. if all he did was shorten the books, he would have nothing but my utmost admiration. otoh, the hobbit is a more folksy book, and those grander themes are only hinted at, so mayhap it's better suited to his talents.
Now that's funny. Kudos. Baz Luhrmann can consult. ;)
Yes, someone at that IP address made some ideologically slanted edits. However, if you go and look at the talk page for that IP address, you will note that there are *many* warnings which have been issued to that user. If you go further, and take a second to look at the pages it was being warned about vandalizing, several of the 'bad' edits are things like "Tom Sucks!" and other edits which were almost certainly made by interns, not at the behest of some nefarious Representative but out of mundane immaturity. So, while a serious, ideologically slanted edit like the one highlighted in the summary may well be the result of government misdeeds, it is clear that there are plenty of people who are capable of editing from that location, and that it is not provable that the edits were...'government' sanctioned.
I would love the search engines to come up with a better way to filter spam. I totally agree on the "this is spam" button. There's probably multiple ways they could accomplish it, everything from only giving you 'mod points' for a limited time period, randomly, to requiring you to have an authenticated install of a google app on your machine to be allowed to mod. Of course nothing is foolproof, but I think you could make it very effectively difficult to corrupt the results with bots. Maybe you could simply flag the voted sites and have other random users who are asked to volunteer a few seconds to judge if the site is spam. I'd gladly volunteer some of my time to an effort like that. Here's hoping!
I think you're being a little narrow--society doesn't want to protect just children from the real world, it wants to protect adults from the real world too. It's more blatant with kids, but most western societies have adopted more and more of a nanny-state mentality, where the government passes laws to restrict freedoms in the name of "security" and "health". I, for one, don't want to live in a society where risk is eliminated and I am protected from all possible harm. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority on this one (however sizable that minority may be), for the march of protective legislation and self-censorship goes on.
there's nothing imaginary about it, except that no one has done it. you made an overreaching claim about whether it was or wasn't possible to emulate your beloved, fancy computer; people pointed out that, in fact, it was; and you have proceeded to vainly attempt to discredit them by making snide comments equating pragmatism with peoples manhood and casting vague aspersions on computing theory. nonetheless, it would, in fact, be possible to do with a real computer, even a real hand-held, attached to finite storage. there's nothing imaginary about the certitude that it *could* be done. sure, it would be worthless for anything other than the million-dollar contract you've generously offered, and completely inefficient, but is it possible? yes. which, i think, was all you originally asked for. something along the lines of "make it as inefficient as you want"? i'm not sure what originally offended you and drove you to make your ill-conceived offer to someone noting the ability of any computing platform to be emulated, but your indignation doesn't make it false.
Can I have the $1,000,000 if I simply show you I can without doing it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine I prefer check, but I'll also take cash or wire-transfer.
yes, the suggestion that someone had put a diablo engine in a smart was very intriguing, but immediately disappointing when i saw the video. funny confusion though. :)
you're being just as glib as you accuse others of being. you admit the impossibility of disproving something, and then say "do it anyway"?? there's a cliched phrase that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. in science, the absence of proof is "disproof". bottom line: it's not true until there is proof that it is true. so, if you actually took a scientific viewpoint on this subject (which you seem somewhat disinclined to, though i can't be certain), you would realize that tesla and/or his believers have already done what you request. they have failed to furnish the proof (or the blueprint for the proof), and therefore have, in effect, disproved their own claims.
the skills one would use to nick the grade-book can be used for more nefarious ends as well. given all the intents and damages physical theft can entail, how come all thefts aren't prosecuted with the same blanket "felony theft" with hefty maximum sentence? hrm? the fact of the matter is, the prosecutor is piling on, and it seems likely they are taking advantage of the very real public discomfort with the computerization of everything. it is still a very fair argument that either there should be more categories of the crimes they are charged with (say, misdemeanor versions?) or that the prosecutor shouldn't be trying to find every possible angle to charge them with.
there's no difference whatsoever. presumably, the grade-book would be located in an office or desk which has other records and information present. someone stealing said grade-book would "have access" to all the other information in the office. the existence of the other information is immaterial if they didn't access or abuse it.
well, that would make more sense. thanks!
doh. :/
I must confess to being confused by that one. I understand (and abhor patent trolls) suing the manufacturers for not licensing the technology, but the storefront? Just going after someone with deep-pockets, or what? It's not actually a tenant of US law that you, as a seller, have to verify that all your wares are correctly licensed with clear patents/copyrights is it? How could a store ever be sure that all the electronic components in, say, the computers it sells are dispute-free?
It's clear from the photos, especially the first one, what is going on here. "We don't know who struck first - us or them - but it was us who scorched the sky."
http://flickr.com/search/?w=33752399%40N00&q=clouds+storm&m=text I thought they were pretty cool when I saw this as well. Had to race like hell to get my camera and get out in front of the storm far enough to get some shots.
because i want to do complex photo editing on an iPhone!? no thanks. if i ever get heavily into authoring icons, that might be just the right size for using photoshop on the iphone...
long winded much? The point I see here is that the person with the complaint linked to NON-objectionable material (AKA NOT violating TOS). At some later point, said link died, then became a link to objectionable material. So...that seems to be an issue to me, that a company would expect you to constantly vet any and all links you might have made at any point in time to verify that they are still non-objectionable. To me, that's a big WTF? Maybe you see that as a non-issue, but I think slashdot readers are being well-informed to learn that one (and where there's one there's usually more) company is holding users responsible for links not just when they are made but ad infinitum. Given that many people have blogs which span YEARS, it's hardly reasonable for anyone to expect that those people will continually sift through their old entries, vetting all the links for TOS compliance. Does that help you understand the significance of the story?
kersigh...i forget that /. has copy editors....
it wasn't digg or slashdot which posted the AACS key, but individuals who would probably *not* get sued. likewise, i wouldn't expect the chinese to post the pics, but people like you and me, individuals who would probably *not* face worse fates....
will people post the pictures all over in a rebellion, a la AACS? or will all the image providers cave a la google.cn, where an image search for tiananmen massacre returns pictures of puppies and gerbils...?
i'm sure they're legally well within their rights, but that doesn't mean it's smart. a) blogging in No Way Shape Or Form is going to realistically compete with the more lucrative, more important broadcast media. so, assuming they had their own official blog, they might be able to make some spare change from advertisers, but it's not going to be anywhere close to the other media rights. i can't imagine reading someone's live blog in lieu of watching the game on tv, if at all possible. b) blogs from the games are a great way to encourage grass-roots fandom. especially if you have multiple providers for the same game, some local, some not, it adds a colorful aspect that can only help boost the enthusiasm for fans. c) prohibiting the live blogs is *only* going to annoy the people who would have read them. personally, i was very disappointed to see they had prohibited the live-blogs. i'd really enjoyed going back and reading cstv.com 's live-blogs from the regional round of the tournament, and it was disappointing they wouldn't be able to provide the same service for the super-regionals. i think it's just another example of a corporation having a knee-jerk negative reaction that doesn't take into account what might actually be best for the customers.