It's not about whether the info is available, it's about whether it's broadcast. If you post something on Slashdot you don't want publicly broadcast, you're an idiot. It's a completely open system. Facebook is NOT completely open. It has privacy measures, and this is a reduction in those privacy measures.
Some of the privacy measures are binary. You can set your privacy level so that non-friends can see 0 information. Other privacy measures are not binary. One example is that if someone wants instant notification of any change in your status, they have to be your friend and then update your page on a regular basis. If they want instant notification of any change in any of their friends' status, they have to track and update potentially hundreds of profiles. Combined with the inherent privacy of friends-only networks, this serves as an additional measure of privacy that is being stripped away.
Continuous references to public information on the internet are stupid and irrelevant. Even after the implementation of the Feed functionality, Facebook is not public info.
I keep trying to watch Buffy from the beginning because of how much I like Firefly. I've rented the Season 1 Disc 1 DVD from Netflix at least twice now, but I don't think I've actually managed to finish all 4 episodes yet. It's just so painfully campy. Mind you, if campy is what you're going for, I can enjoy that. I love the movie version. The show just seems to be occupying a very strange middle ground between "The Mummy" and "Aliens". Both are good, but you really shouldn't mix the two.
But I've heard from other friends that it really is worth watching, so I'm sure that I will rent it again and give it another go.
As for Angel - I've only seen part of one episode, but it was so belligerently awful I couldn't watch more than 30 minutes. Again, I may try it at some later date, but it reminded me of "Charmed" (the stupid show with the 3 witch sisters) more than anything else.
I watched most of season 1. I thought it had some issues, but at least it was trying to play by the rules of a "serious" show. I thought that some aspects were overblown, but it was so, so, so incredibly refreshing to see sci-fi at least aim high. I'm not sure about the whole sexy-psylons aspect, but it might have worked out OK. I mean, it's not even in the same league as Stargate, and it pains me that some people can't tell the difference. Watching Stargate and then Battlestar is like watching Hamlet performed at a middle school and then by an edgy professional group. I may not agree with all the choices of the professionals, but at least we're not watching middle schoolers fart and laugh on stage any more.
If I had sci-fi channel where I live now, I'd still be tuning in.
Putting aside your own privacy precautions, I think the general question still stands: is making information publicly available the same as broadcasting it?
I think the answer is obviously no. If I write my deepest darkest secrets and drop them into the ocean in international waters, they are publicly available, but I'd rather do that than have them read on NPR this morning.
Anyone that sees no difference between the two is blind. If you had an option: have an embarassing story about you told to a random stranger or told to everyone at the place where you work - which would you pick? Both are public, and more realistic than the note dropped in international waters, but the result is the same: publicly available is not the same as publicly broadcast.
That's really all I'm getting at. I put the principle into practice with my own identity. I'm "theStorminMormon" on Slashdot, but I don't think it would really be that hard to track me down if you want my real name. I'd rather it not be broadcast on Slashdot not because I think that this somehow prevents anyone from getting it, but because I know that most people who might annoy me if they knew my identity don't care enough to do the research it would take.
You putting that you're "in a relationship" on Fcaebook implies that you wanted everyone on your friend's list to be able to see it.
No, it doesn't. That's like saying that if you do something in public, you want everyone there to see it. This is just false. Facebook only has two options: you're friends with someone or you're not. I'm friends with people that I want to keep track of because I knew them 10 years ago in high school. I'm also friends with, among others, my best friend, my wife, and one of my sisters. You're implying that I want them all to know everything I put on facebook to equal degrees. I don't actually care enough to prevent my old high school buddies from knowing everything I post on Facebook, but I'd really rather not have it broadcast either.
Real name and email address is info you don't want anyone to see. Hence, it's private. It's information I shared with the site, and the site alone. If I wanted people to be able to view it, I'd make it available to people- like those are facebook are doing.
It's not the simple. The claim being made (not necessarily by you) is that publicly available is no different from publicly broadcast. I'm sure that I can get info about you from publicly available sources that you don't want on your Slashdot profile. Do you agree or disagree? It doesn't even have to be internet based. I can hire (if I really want) a P.I. to do a thorough background check on you using only public records. Where you live, if you own, how much you paid if you do own, etc.
But it would cost me money (not to mention time) to dig through all that info. And that's your reason for believing I won't. It takes more trouble than it's worth, so you don't lose sleep over it. I'm not actually going to hire a P.I. 'cause I don't have a lot of extra cash and it's not worth it to prove a point on an internet forum.
Now imagine that Facebook just hired a P.I. for all their members and said "have fun". That's kind of like what is happening here. They've erased the effort it required to dig up info on people's status. Considering that people have 50-100 friends on average, that's a lot of effort (hence a lot of cost) that went into protecting privacy that is now gone.
Kneejerk rebellion is the same as kneejerk conformity. I thought most people figured this out in high school.
If you're looking for genuine independence, you're more likely to find it with the people that don't fit into any of your tests perfectly. Of course, you're not looking for genuine independence. You're looking for a bunch of non-conformists who look and think just like you.
Glad to hear it. If you think about it afterwards, drop me an email and let me know how it goes. It'd be great to have yet another Firefly fan on Slashdot.
I didn't put my real name, email address or any other identifying in my/. profile. Its because I don't wish to have that information available to the world at large.
You just proved his point. The rest is irrelevant. There's publicly available info about you that you don't want publicly announced. Period.
You're depending on exactly the type of anonymity (people being too lazy to collect disparate public info) that the Facebook people are angry about losing. When Slashdot starts aggregating all your info (including real name, email, etc.) and putting it in your profile whether you want it there or not, maybe it will sink through your thick skull.
Facebook users were granted a measure of privacy not explicitly in the terms, but in the system. The way Facebook functioned provided a measure of privacy by making people who wanted to find out info about them do the work themselves. That's been taken away.
Well, yes and no. It's not like there's going to be a "right answer" to questions of quality in a TV Show, but I think that this doesn't necessarily mean that some shows aren't better than others. Contrast "FastLane" and "24". I don't care what you're subjective tastes are, one show was actually pretty tight in terms of plot, writing, acting, etc. and the other just sucked.
So maybe the characters on Stargate were "likeable". I thought so. I just didn't care. The acting was so INCREDIBLY awful, and the plots so stupid, and the dialog so reminiscent of Star Wars 1-3 that the show literally just hurt to watch. It wasn't remotely believable even with suspension of disbelief because there wasn't any internal consistency. It was just a train wreck of hoaky cliches and corny, derivative, fluffy action. With just the barest hint of pseudo-philosophy/religious commentary now and then as pure decoration.
As far as Firefly goes, I think you really need to watch the show from the pilot. The first time I started watching the show was randomly in the middle of its original run on Fox and I was like "WTF?" I felt exactly like you - I couldn't figure out the characters. They seemed kind of... off. And so I didn't care. Firefly is good drama precisely because the characters are paramount. If you don't care about them, the show is meaningless. And a lot of people never cared about the characters.
But it turns out the reason for this is that Firefly is a much more closely-knit show than most episodic entertainment. You really do need to understand the character relationships because they are not stereotypical. Just look at Wash and Zoe. You've got the battle-hardened wife, and the more gentle husband. It's gender role-reversal (from a traditional American standpoint) but it's not farcical comedy or even social-political posturing: it's a genuine relationship. This isn't something you're going to pick up on if you pick up the show in media res. You have to actually see Zoe and Wash together to really get it.
I fell in love with the show when someone got me to watch the pilot first. I'm serious - that's what you need to do. Find someone that owns a copy (or bittorrent it, I don't care) and just watch the pilot first. This is the real reason the show never caught on. Everyone that watched it was forced to see the episodes completely out of order, and stuff doesn't make sense that way. Not only are the relationships genuine, non-stereotypical, and complex, but they are fluid. The relationship between Simon and River with Jayne is completely different before and after the episode "Ariel" (and the line: "Also, I can kill you with my brain.") The same is true of many other characters as well.
I'm telling you man, I'm no huge fan of Joss Wheddon (never did get into Buffy) but with this show he created a masterpiece. Please do yourself a favor and check it out from the pilot onwards. After you see the first episode or two (in order), you won't need any more convincing. If they're airing the pilot first during this marathon, then that will do. Record it, watch it later, whatever. It won't let you down.
I'm not saying it's "as Western", I'm saying that it also had "spacecowboy" elements. Kind of like how almost every episode ended with the text "see you, space cowboy" onscreen.
It's so obvious that you're wrong - it's even implicit in your grammar.
Passive - you change your relationship status, but people have to observe it. They have to have tracked your status before, they have to track it after. They have to go out and look for it. This is a kind of anonymity - it's the anonymity of being in a crowd. Think of it as falling down while walking along a crowded street. It's sort of embarrassing, but no one really notices.
Active - you change your relationship status, and now it is broadcast. This means that even people who would have no special reason to be paying attention to your status are going to know you had a break up. I have about 50 friends or so on Facebook. Some closer than others. So for a lot of them, I have no idea what their relationship status is. If it were to change, I would have no idea. But if it's broadcast - now I know. It's like the previous example of tripping, but instead of doing it on a crowded sidewalk, you're tripping on your way to pick up your diploma. Your name has been called, the attention is on you - isn't that more embarrassing?
There IS a difference between information being publicly available and information being broadcast.
It's more about the culture of Facebook. Everyone knows that the Internet allows people to create new, false alter-ego's, but some people actually want to use it more like a phone - to make contact with other people.
Because of the way it is setup, Facebook users are mostly friends with people they already know "in real life", and as a result, it has a tradition of onymity. That's not to say there's something wrong with anonymity (e.g. Slashdot), it's just a different culture.
Personally, I appreciate both. I enjoy being "theStorminMormon" on Slashdot, but I use Facebook to keep in contact with buddies from college and even look up people from my high school to see where they are now. It's not that I'd particularly want to hide "theStorminMormon" from them, but I didn't even start using that handle until college and a lot of people I know have no idea that I use that alias - so it makes more sense to have my real name on Facebook.
So... do you actually dislike Firefly or are you just mad they canceled the show you liked before that? 'Cause really, I can see people not liking the show (the combination Western/sci-fi theme isn't for everyone's taste) but I think it's just not possible for someone to watch the show with an open mind and not realize that the writing, acting, and directing are all superb. It's not even on the same playing field as most sci-fi series (see: Stargate).
BTW, what ever happened to "Space: Above and Beyond"?
Best. Show. Evar.
I really long for the days when sci-fi didn't, you know, suck. (Of course, by the end of the first season, S:AAB was working pretty hard on crossing that line.)
"The series has also been broadcast by the anime television network, Animax, across Japan, East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Latin America, and other regions,"
"A poll in the Japanese magazine Newtype asked its readers to rank the "Top 25 Anime Titles of All Time"; Cowboy Bebop placed at number two on a list that included Mobile Suit Gundam and Neon Genesis Evangelion.[1]"
* Voted for bush [check]
* Have no imagination [no check]
* Use myspace [no check]
* Get caught in viri marketing [check - I Love Bees]
* Prefer reality tv shows [uncheck - only project runway!]
* Disapprove of Firefly [uncheck - wife and I bought the boxed set on our honeymoon, watched Serenity the day it came out, etc.]
* Believe in the war on terror [check]
Yeah, and that was definitely 10 seasons too many.
What is it with sci-fi fans that they turn off their sense of critical appreciation when they turn on the sci-fi channel. Stargate, Star Trek: Voyage, Farscape - the reason sci-fi shows don't stand a chance with the mainstream is that sci-fi fans have their standards set so low! You transport your average sci-fi show to any other channel and it's revealed for what it is: Hercules or Xena with lasers and spaceships.
As an actual sci-fi fan, this upsets me. Then truly good shows (like Firefly) don't make it even when they should. Even I didn't really make time to see it when it was originally on Fox because of all the crappy sci-fi shows I'd seen before (clearly that was a mistake on my part).
As long as sci-fi producers can make money by hiring chimpanzees to write stupid shows acted by mannequins the quality will never improve.
The story seems predominantly interested in the artistic flavor of Warhammer vs. Warcraft. Since D&D doesn't really have a cohesive and distinctive artistic style (at least, not one that can be confused with Warhammer or Warcraft) that's kind of irrelevent.
What they're talking about is the stylized, oversized weapons and armor. Take the huge, rounded shoulder guards of Warhammer vs. Warcraft (also in Starcraft vs. Warhammer 40K) as just one example of what they're talking about.
Isn't this a little like saying that if Sycom (or any contracting company) happens to assign "Joe Dunce-ski" to your account, you can rely on them to fix anything he screws up?
Yeah, pretty much. Look, I really just don't think you're doing a good job of looking at this from the perspective of your average non-techie small business owner. They're taking a huge risk opening a business to do X, and X has nothing to do with computers. So why on earth would they want to waste time learning about computers more than just the minimum they need to do X? Do you have any idea how busy a new small business owner is without this burden?
So you've got someone who doesn't know jack about linux but has familiarity with windows, and they need to pick the one that will be the least effort. Of course they go with Windows!
What I was originally referring to is an additional reason to go with Windows. Picture yourself as someone who has worked with Windows (just as an end user) your whole life, you need to get someone to run a network for your small business, and you can either pick a big name company or go find some Joe Schmo to interview. The big name company is probably not on the level of service as a lone wolf expert would, but then again, your small business owner has no way of knowing if they guy he's talking to is a linux guru or a linux noob. So even if Sycom sends him some windows moron, if it breaks the comapny will be there to fix it. If you've got a contract with one guy, how can you be sure that he's going to be there to fix it?
I agree that you're more likely to get serious talent if you go with a linux guy, but the sense of security isn't there. Yes - if Sycom sends out a loser you get to call and be like "send us someone else next time". And they will. No problems. If you're indie contractor turns out to be a loser you're back to square 1, and whoever comes in next has no obligation to start where the loser left off. If Sycom screws up your system, they will be there to fix it. If some dude screws up your system then - short of a lawsuit - who's going to stand behind the screw up?
OK. Point 1 - No ongoing contract with Sycom. They came in to set it up, then left. No one did maintenance. That's what I mean by "nothing". When stuff broke, they called Sycom. This was not often.
Point 2 - If you're a small business owner who knows nothing about tech, would you rather trust some guy working solo or a large, established, reputable company? If you want the best service for the money, you go with the individual. But there's a high risk associated with that as well. So small businesses may very well opt to go with a larger company knowing the value will be mediocre because at least the risk of the large company getting sick, getting bored, or just plain flaking out is drastically smaller than for a tiny business or independent contractor.
That's why small businesses go with Windows. They can't evaluate the software themselves, they are already taking a lot of risks, and they want something that "just works", even if it doesn't work great.
Cheaper than nothing? 'Cause that's what my company was paying for their Windows support - they just didn't get any. True, this was probably not genius on their part and I argued for getting someone to do maintenance work, but they'd essentially gone maintenance free for 4 or 5 years. They called in Sycom to set it up, then just called them in when stuff broke. Which was not that often. Probably one every 2-3 months, and then that was desktop stuff, not server stuff. The server only choked once or twice in the year we had no support.
So you got to realize that these small businesses are just trying to make it through their first few years. It's not as though SBS on one non-RAID box with no maintenance is a permenant plan for anyone. It's a way to get through the first few years investing in the stuff that's actually directly relevant to your business. It's high-risk, but here's the thing: so is starting your own business! They've already accepted huge amounts of risk when they opened their own shop, going non-RAID is just another toss of the dice.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about whether the info is available, it's about whether it's broadcast. If you post something on Slashdot you don't want publicly broadcast, you're an idiot. It's a completely open system. Facebook is NOT completely open. It has privacy measures, and this is a reduction in those privacy measures.
Some of the privacy measures are binary. You can set your privacy level so that non-friends can see 0 information. Other privacy measures are not binary. One example is that if someone wants instant notification of any change in your status, they have to be your friend and then update your page on a regular basis. If they want instant notification of any change in any of their friends' status, they have to track and update potentially hundreds of profiles. Combined with the inherent privacy of friends-only networks, this serves as an additional measure of privacy that is being stripped away.
Continuous references to public information on the internet are stupid and irrelevant. Even after the implementation of the Feed functionality, Facebook is not public info.
-stormin
I keep trying to watch Buffy from the beginning because of how much I like Firefly. I've rented the Season 1 Disc 1 DVD from Netflix at least twice now, but I don't think I've actually managed to finish all 4 episodes yet. It's just so painfully campy. Mind you, if campy is what you're going for, I can enjoy that. I love the movie version. The show just seems to be occupying a very strange middle ground between "The Mummy" and "Aliens". Both are good, but you really shouldn't mix the two.
But I've heard from other friends that it really is worth watching, so I'm sure that I will rent it again and give it another go.
As for Angel - I've only seen part of one episode, but it was so belligerently awful I couldn't watch more than 30 minutes. Again, I may try it at some later date, but it reminded me of "Charmed" (the stupid show with the 3 witch sisters) more than anything else.
-stormin
I watched most of season 1. I thought it had some issues, but at least it was trying to play by the rules of a "serious" show. I thought that some aspects were overblown, but it was so, so, so incredibly refreshing to see sci-fi at least aim high. I'm not sure about the whole sexy-psylons aspect, but it might have worked out OK. I mean, it's not even in the same league as Stargate, and it pains me that some people can't tell the difference. Watching Stargate and then Battlestar is like watching Hamlet performed at a middle school and then by an edgy professional group. I may not agree with all the choices of the professionals, but at least we're not watching middle schoolers fart and laugh on stage any more.
If I had sci-fi channel where I live now, I'd still be tuning in.
Putting aside your own privacy precautions, I think the general question still stands: is making information publicly available the same as broadcasting it?
I think the answer is obviously no. If I write my deepest darkest secrets and drop them into the ocean in international waters, they are publicly available, but I'd rather do that than have them read on NPR this morning.
Anyone that sees no difference between the two is blind. If you had an option: have an embarassing story about you told to a random stranger or told to everyone at the place where you work - which would you pick? Both are public, and more realistic than the note dropped in international waters, but the result is the same: publicly available is not the same as publicly broadcast.
That's really all I'm getting at. I put the principle into practice with my own identity. I'm "theStorminMormon" on Slashdot, but I don't think it would really be that hard to track me down if you want my real name. I'd rather it not be broadcast on Slashdot not because I think that this somehow prevents anyone from getting it, but because I know that most people who might annoy me if they knew my identity don't care enough to do the research it would take.
-stormin
You putting that you're "in a relationship" on Fcaebook implies that you wanted everyone on your friend's list to be able to see it.
No, it doesn't. That's like saying that if you do something in public, you want everyone there to see it. This is just false. Facebook only has two options: you're friends with someone or you're not. I'm friends with people that I want to keep track of because I knew them 10 years ago in high school. I'm also friends with, among others, my best friend, my wife, and one of my sisters. You're implying that I want them all to know everything I put on facebook to equal degrees. I don't actually care enough to prevent my old high school buddies from knowing everything I post on Facebook, but I'd really rather not have it broadcast either.
Real name and email address is info you don't want anyone to see. Hence, it's private. It's information I shared with the site, and the site alone. If I wanted people to be able to view it, I'd make it available to people- like those are facebook are doing.
It's not the simple. The claim being made (not necessarily by you) is that publicly available is no different from publicly broadcast. I'm sure that I can get info about you from publicly available sources that you don't want on your Slashdot profile. Do you agree or disagree? It doesn't even have to be internet based. I can hire (if I really want) a P.I. to do a thorough background check on you using only public records. Where you live, if you own, how much you paid if you do own, etc.
But it would cost me money (not to mention time) to dig through all that info. And that's your reason for believing I won't. It takes more trouble than it's worth, so you don't lose sleep over it. I'm not actually going to hire a P.I. 'cause I don't have a lot of extra cash and it's not worth it to prove a point on an internet forum.
Now imagine that Facebook just hired a P.I. for all their members and said "have fun". That's kind of like what is happening here. They've erased the effort it required to dig up info on people's status. Considering that people have 50-100 friends on average, that's a lot of effort (hence a lot of cost) that went into protecting privacy that is now gone.
-stormin
Kneejerk rebellion is the same as kneejerk conformity. I thought most people figured this out in high school.
If you're looking for genuine independence, you're more likely to find it with the people that don't fit into any of your tests perfectly. Of course, you're not looking for genuine independence. You're looking for a bunch of non-conformists who look and think just like you.
-stormin
Glad to hear it. If you think about it afterwards, drop me an email and let me know how it goes. It'd be great to have yet another Firefly fan on Slashdot.
-stormin
Oh well gee, I just got called a name by an AC.
That's never happened before.
-stormin
I didn't put my real name, email address or any other identifying in my /. profile. Its because I don't wish to have that information available to the world at large.
You just proved his point. The rest is irrelevant. There's publicly available info about you that you don't want publicly announced. Period.
You're depending on exactly the type of anonymity (people being too lazy to collect disparate public info) that the Facebook people are angry about losing. When Slashdot starts aggregating all your info (including real name, email, etc.) and putting it in your profile whether you want it there or not, maybe it will sink through your thick skull.
Facebook users were granted a measure of privacy not explicitly in the terms, but in the system. The way Facebook functioned provided a measure of privacy by making people who wanted to find out info about them do the work themselves. That's been taken away.
-stormin
Of course, it's all subjective.
Well, yes and no. It's not like there's going to be a "right answer" to questions of quality in a TV Show, but I think that this doesn't necessarily mean that some shows aren't better than others. Contrast "FastLane" and "24". I don't care what you're subjective tastes are, one show was actually pretty tight in terms of plot, writing, acting, etc. and the other just sucked.
So maybe the characters on Stargate were "likeable". I thought so. I just didn't care. The acting was so INCREDIBLY awful, and the plots so stupid, and the dialog so reminiscent of Star Wars 1-3 that the show literally just hurt to watch. It wasn't remotely believable even with suspension of disbelief because there wasn't any internal consistency. It was just a train wreck of hoaky cliches and corny, derivative, fluffy action. With just the barest hint of pseudo-philosophy/religious commentary now and then as pure decoration.
As far as Firefly goes, I think you really need to watch the show from the pilot. The first time I started watching the show was randomly in the middle of its original run on Fox and I was like "WTF?" I felt exactly like you - I couldn't figure out the characters. They seemed kind of... off. And so I didn't care. Firefly is good drama precisely because the characters are paramount. If you don't care about them, the show is meaningless. And a lot of people never cared about the characters.
But it turns out the reason for this is that Firefly is a much more closely-knit show than most episodic entertainment. You really do need to understand the character relationships because they are not stereotypical. Just look at Wash and Zoe. You've got the battle-hardened wife, and the more gentle husband. It's gender role-reversal (from a traditional American standpoint) but it's not farcical comedy or even social-political posturing: it's a genuine relationship. This isn't something you're going to pick up on if you pick up the show in media res. You have to actually see Zoe and Wash together to really get it.
I fell in love with the show when someone got me to watch the pilot first. I'm serious - that's what you need to do. Find someone that owns a copy (or bittorrent it, I don't care) and just watch the pilot first. This is the real reason the show never caught on. Everyone that watched it was forced to see the episodes completely out of order, and stuff doesn't make sense that way. Not only are the relationships genuine, non-stereotypical, and complex, but they are fluid. The relationship between Simon and River with Jayne is completely different before and after the episode "Ariel" (and the line: "Also, I can kill you with my brain.") The same is true of many other characters as well.
I'm telling you man, I'm no huge fan of Joss Wheddon (never did get into Buffy) but with this show he created a masterpiece. Please do yourself a favor and check it out from the pilot onwards. After you see the first episode or two (in order), you won't need any more convincing. If they're airing the pilot first during this marathon, then that will do. Record it, watch it later, whatever. It won't let you down.
-stormin
I'm not saying it's "as Western", I'm saying that it also had "spacecowboy" elements. Kind of like how almost every episode ended with the text "see you, space cowboy" onscreen.
-stormin
and are surprised that anyone notices.
It's so obvious that you're wrong - it's even implicit in your grammar.
Passive - you change your relationship status, but people have to observe it. They have to have tracked your status before, they have to track it after. They have to go out and look for it. This is a kind of anonymity - it's the anonymity of being in a crowd. Think of it as falling down while walking along a crowded street. It's sort of embarrassing, but no one really notices.
Active - you change your relationship status, and now it is broadcast. This means that even people who would have no special reason to be paying attention to your status are going to know you had a break up. I have about 50 friends or so on Facebook. Some closer than others. So for a lot of them, I have no idea what their relationship status is. If it were to change, I would have no idea. But if it's broadcast - now I know. It's like the previous example of tripping, but instead of doing it on a crowded sidewalk, you're tripping on your way to pick up your diploma. Your name has been called, the attention is on you - isn't that more embarrassing?
There IS a difference between information being publicly available and information being broadcast.
-stormin
Amazing post.
It's more about the culture of Facebook. Everyone knows that the Internet allows people to create new, false alter-ego's, but some people actually want to use it more like a phone - to make contact with other people.
Because of the way it is setup, Facebook users are mostly friends with people they already know "in real life", and as a result, it has a tradition of onymity. That's not to say there's something wrong with anonymity (e.g. Slashdot), it's just a different culture.
Personally, I appreciate both. I enjoy being "theStorminMormon" on Slashdot, but I use Facebook to keep in contact with buddies from college and even look up people from my high school to see where they are now. It's not that I'd particularly want to hide "theStorminMormon" from them, but I didn't even start using that handle until college and a lot of people I know have no idea that I use that alias - so it makes more sense to have my real name on Facebook.
-stormin
So... do you actually dislike Firefly or are you just mad they canceled the show you liked before that? 'Cause really, I can see people not liking the show (the combination Western/sci-fi theme isn't for everyone's taste) but I think it's just not possible for someone to watch the show with an open mind and not realize that the writing, acting, and directing are all superb. It's not even on the same playing field as most sci-fi series (see: Stargate).
-stormin
BTW, what ever happened to "Space: Above and Beyond"?
Best. Show. Evar.
I really long for the days when sci-fi didn't, you know, suck. (Of course, by the end of the first season, S:AAB was working pretty hard on crossing that line.)
-stormin
Yeah, spacecowboy is purely a US phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_bebop
"The series has also been broadcast by the anime television network, Animax, across Japan, East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Latin America, and other regions,"
"A poll in the Japanese magazine Newtype asked its readers to rank the "Top 25 Anime Titles of All Time"; Cowboy Bebop placed at number two on a list that included Mobile Suit Gundam and Neon Genesis Evangelion.[1]"
-stormin
Your terminology is missing a word.
"Yanked" - finally pulled from the air that which never should have been there.
As in, "At long last, Stargate has been yanked."
OK, OK, I'm trolling. But it's still true.
-stormin
I think I broke your test:
* Voted for bush [check]
* Have no imagination [no check]
* Use myspace [no check]
* Get caught in viri marketing [check - I Love Bees]
* Prefer reality tv shows [uncheck - only project runway!]
* Disapprove of Firefly [uncheck - wife and I bought the boxed set on our honeymoon, watched Serenity the day it came out, etc.]
* Believe in the war on terror [check]
Sorry.
-stormin
Yeah, and that was definitely 10 seasons too many.
What is it with sci-fi fans that they turn off their sense of critical appreciation when they turn on the sci-fi channel. Stargate, Star Trek: Voyage, Farscape - the reason sci-fi shows don't stand a chance with the mainstream is that sci-fi fans have their standards set so low! You transport your average sci-fi show to any other channel and it's revealed for what it is: Hercules or Xena with lasers and spaceships.
As an actual sci-fi fan, this upsets me. Then truly good shows (like Firefly) don't make it even when they should. Even I didn't really make time to see it when it was originally on Fox because of all the crappy sci-fi shows I'd seen before (clearly that was a mistake on my part).
As long as sci-fi producers can make money by hiring chimpanzees to write stupid shows acted by mannequins the quality will never improve.
-stormin
I'd like to see the segway handle the recoil of a minigun. I imagine that would make the ride more interesting.
-stormin
The story seems predominantly interested in the artistic flavor of Warhammer vs. Warcraft. Since D&D doesn't really have a cohesive and distinctive artistic style (at least, not one that can be confused with Warhammer or Warcraft) that's kind of irrelevent.
What they're talking about is the stylized, oversized weapons and armor. Take the huge, rounded shoulder guards of Warhammer vs. Warcraft (also in Starcraft vs. Warhammer 40K) as just one example of what they're talking about.
-stormin
Isn't this a little like saying that if Sycom (or any contracting company) happens to assign "Joe Dunce-ski" to your account, you can rely on them to fix anything he screws up?
Yeah, pretty much. Look, I really just don't think you're doing a good job of looking at this from the perspective of your average non-techie small business owner. They're taking a huge risk opening a business to do X, and X has nothing to do with computers. So why on earth would they want to waste time learning about computers more than just the minimum they need to do X? Do you have any idea how busy a new small business owner is without this burden?
So you've got someone who doesn't know jack about linux but has familiarity with windows, and they need to pick the one that will be the least effort. Of course they go with Windows!
What I was originally referring to is an additional reason to go with Windows. Picture yourself as someone who has worked with Windows (just as an end user) your whole life, you need to get someone to run a network for your small business, and you can either pick a big name company or go find some Joe Schmo to interview. The big name company is probably not on the level of service as a lone wolf expert would, but then again, your small business owner has no way of knowing if they guy he's talking to is a linux guru or a linux noob. So even if Sycom sends him some windows moron, if it breaks the comapny will be there to fix it. If you've got a contract with one guy, how can you be sure that he's going to be there to fix it?
I agree that you're more likely to get serious talent if you go with a linux guy, but the sense of security isn't there. Yes - if Sycom sends out a loser you get to call and be like "send us someone else next time". And they will. No problems. If you're indie contractor turns out to be a loser you're back to square 1, and whoever comes in next has no obligation to start where the loser left off. If Sycom screws up your system, they will be there to fix it. If some dude screws up your system then - short of a lawsuit - who's going to stand behind the screw up?
-stormin
OK. Point 1 - No ongoing contract with Sycom. They came in to set it up, then left. No one did maintenance. That's what I mean by "nothing". When stuff broke, they called Sycom. This was not often.
Point 2 - If you're a small business owner who knows nothing about tech, would you rather trust some guy working solo or a large, established, reputable company? If you want the best service for the money, you go with the individual. But there's a high risk associated with that as well. So small businesses may very well opt to go with a larger company knowing the value will be mediocre because at least the risk of the large company getting sick, getting bored, or just plain flaking out is drastically smaller than for a tiny business or independent contractor.
That's why small businesses go with Windows. They can't evaluate the software themselves, they are already taking a lot of risks, and they want something that "just works", even if it doesn't work great.
-stormin
Cheaper than nothing? 'Cause that's what my company was paying for their Windows support - they just didn't get any. True, this was probably not genius on their part and I argued for getting someone to do maintenance work, but they'd essentially gone maintenance free for 4 or 5 years. They called in Sycom to set it up, then just called them in when stuff broke. Which was not that often. Probably one every 2-3 months, and then that was desktop stuff, not server stuff. The server only choked once or twice in the year we had no support.
So you got to realize that these small businesses are just trying to make it through their first few years. It's not as though SBS on one non-RAID box with no maintenance is a permenant plan for anyone. It's a way to get through the first few years investing in the stuff that's actually directly relevant to your business. It's high-risk, but here's the thing: so is starting your own business! They've already accepted huge amounts of risk when they opened their own shop, going non-RAID is just another toss of the dice.
-stormin