War Games and Sneakers are indeed much more similar. Both are so awesome that I refuse to pit them in opposing corners, but rather team them together in a juggernaut of awesome.
An internet-based poll is extremely vulnerable to a very motivated minority. Examples include Stephen Colbert's trolling of NASA, or 4chan's abuse of many other polls.
I'm not sure why I was modded a troll; I'll try to explain better.
Richard said, "Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 were driveling pieces of shit with huge gaping lies throughout." Jerry rebutted by saying, "I'm eagerly awaiting your own movie exposing these "lies"".
I was merely pointing out that that was a poor rebuttal. Whether or not one's made a movie is not a basis for truth, or a defense. Moore may have filled his movies with lies, or not -- I don't know, I haven't seen them. I'm merely saying that denigrating someone's opinion because they haven't made their argument in a particular manner (by making a film) is a case of attacking the messenger, rather than the message.
What's insightful is that most laws and legal documents these days are very... long. The Declaration of Independence, and the amendments to the US constitution were very well-edited, and pared down to just about the bare words necessary. I could live without the loaded words that $RU used to say that, though.
Given the premise of much of Stranger in a Strange Land, I am pretty sure Heinlein would have subscribed (if he didn't already?) to the "an it harm none..." principle.
With your contacts on the web, and your e-mail stored online, or your friends stored via the IM service (or Facebook), it doesn't matter if your phone gets dropped/flushed/broken: Get a new one, log into the services, and viola! All your stuff is accessible.
If my smartphone (if I had one) broke, I could still contact my wife for my backup (if I had one): I know her phone number, and could e-mail her too. Short of making emergency calls on the highway (for which there's often a call box nearby), I can wait until I get home to replace my phone or PDA (if I had one). It's possible this is because I don't use them as extensively as you do, though, so I can tolerate being without more easily.
It applies universally to people of any time. The perspective is just different.
If someone came up to me and said, "hey, I can cure that bleeding contusion where you hit your head on the branch", and then healed it by touching it, or were to seamlessly step through a wall (or out of thin air), or became invisible, I'd think it was magic. That is, I'd want to believe it was technology (as then I could do it too), would look for the gimmick, but would be as unable to understand what was happening as I would be if it were magic. In fact, I couldn't tell the difference between someone using some Tesla-riffic teleportation device and magic.
Once I understand the science and technology (or understand thoroughly that it IS technology), it's not magic anymore. Lightsaber: not magic. Transporter room: not magic. Mind reading? Teleportation? Personal flight? Magic until I see otherwise. (I say a lightsaber or transporter aren't magic, because they're portrayed as being technological tools -- even if we'd need nigh-magic to get it to happen today.)
And yet, I have a hard time wanting to watch it, because it's basically watching him play rock-em-sock-em robots with a controller on the side of the stage. I read a short story whose name I can't remember that would have been jaw-droppingly better, I suspect. (In it, the former-boxer was able to inhabit robot bodies for fighting, and then had that ability taken away. It was a good read, I wish I could link it. Or even name it, or the author.)
A more honest answer might be to play F.E.A.R. (as it has many Jumpy portions) in the dark, or without quicksaves. I had a few moments like that in Borderlands, too, inronically: despite having a respawn capability, something about having giant 20-foot spiders leaping out of the ground all around me would startle the hell out of me.
I agree, though. Wolfenstein unnerved me in a way which few shooters have since. In a way I think it's because they are MORE realistic portrayals. The enemies behave like humans, I can have some semblance of stealth, etc. I can use tactics, rather than playing zombie-survival-mode.
Han shooting second doesn't ruin the movie for me, but it certainly changes our initial perception of him. He's now defending himself, rather than shooting a bounty hunter in cold blood. Rather than shooting to keep from being killed, he originally was portrayed as having intended to shoot Greedo all along (or, that's how I understood it).
His initial portrayal was much more selfish and amoral. You can see it when he's saying things like, "I don't care about your rebellion, I'm just in this for the money", or how he doesn't want to rescue Leia until he hears she's rich. All along he's trying to pay back Jabba -- which is interesting, because I'd never noticed the dialogue about that in ANH and ESB until recently.
Granted, his character changes/grows a lot over the movies, but the remade ANH has him starting at a much less rogue-like position than before.
I saw Avatar twice in 2D, and it was still breathtaking. I wasn't expecting a deep story, but rather a visual spectacle with Action. I wasn't disappointed. I still want to see it in 3D. Those bioluminescent plants were awesome.
More importantly, often the best special effects are the ones that are NOT visually glamorous. For example, in Forrest Gump, they did some awesome stuff to make Gary Sinise look like he'd had his leg(s?) amputated. It was amazing. It was nearly invisible in the movie. If I hadn't known that Gary Sinise had both his legs, I'd have thought they had hired an actor without legs.
For what it's worth, there are certainly Americans who understand that some parts of the rest of the world doesn't want us there, and that much of our foreign policy woes are directly related to our past (and current) meddlings in local politics. Also, not all of us feel we're there to "civilize" you.
We punish the car-creators when they malfunction. When Bob runs down a row of kindergarteners on purpose, he gets punished, not Ford.
Guns killing people is a case of the user causing the weapon to function perfectly, in a manner and direction which is (usually) illegal. Guns are designed to impart lots of kinetic energy to a projectile, while keeping the user safe from harm (barrel exploding, etc) and keeping the projectile's trajectory as predictable as possible.
If someone wants to murder someone, they'll find a way -- whether they use a gun, poison, a knife, a bow-and-arrow, a trebuchet, or a bus. It seems pretty wilfully obtuse to want to punish gun-makers for the fact that some of their creations are used illegally. The gun (and manufacturer) has no way of determining the legality of its use: that's for the user to understand. Guns can't tell whether you're pointing them at the guy raping your wife (likely to be legal), or whether they're pointed at the driver in the car next to you who flipped you off (Likely not legal).
Punish the user for poor moral choices. Don't blame the tool.
Most civilians (and non-police) that buy bullets are doing so to go hunting or target-shooting. (OK, gang members might be a counter-example.) If I'm a clerk at Joe's Gun Shop, and someone wants to buy several boxes of rounds, it's pretty unlikely that their reason is to go off and shoot other people. More likely it's to fire them off at the range, or kill some turkeys or rabbits.
Is there a law regulating the sale of ammunition? (Probably.)
The fact that one can produce/film/fund a movie about something doesn't make it more truthful, anymore than being able to paint an assertion on the side of the freeway that "2+2=7" would make it true.
I think it's more a case where you listen to the argument presented, and say, "There's something not quite right about that, and I can't put my finger on it." Either he's missing some alternate explanation, or mis-presenting somethign as fact, or perhaps is assuming that A implies B when in reality they're coincidental. Perhaps he's omitting the counterargument completely and hand-waving that it doesn't matter, rather than addressing the issues. I would get that feeling whenever I'd listen to Rush, or a certain one of my high school teachers. The feeling that If I only had enough time with the internet and a frickin' library, I could lay out exactly the ways in which his argument is flawed. (This is then beaten down by time until I can't remember a specific incident of this, merely that it seemed to happen nearly every day when I listened to Rush.)
I think that's what they mean by "he makes his argument badly". It's infuriating, it gets great ratings, and makes them lots of money to do it that way.
Does she have a glossary so that people who are not already "in the know" as far as her clique's lingo can understand what she means by things like "PIV"? I get that "pomo" is her abbreviation for post-modern, or something related, but she's speaking about all sorts of things which she has presumably already defined, or is working on a shared understanding of meaning, and I haven't a clue what she's talking about half the time. She asserts things like "PIV is dangerous to women", and I keep looking for tooltips or a glossary page.
I can't even tell if I disagree with her, because I have no idea what she's trying to say.
This is why you have the conversation recorded. Assuming it's legal, of course, and that you have a way to make sure that the evidence isn't lost.
I doubt that "most" cops in the US are corrupt, or dickheads. Some are, but I doubt most are. (Let's avoid the side-track of "well then why are they protecting those who are", because we've all heard it before.)
Great point -- however, if one has a weapon of any variety (even one that might be in plain sight), it's wise to tell the officer that before making any moves that might possibly be construed as reaching for a weapon. Things like, "Officer, I am wearing a pistol on my hip, which is near my seatbelt" or "I have a pistol in my glove compartment" or "I have a hunting knife on my belt", followed by a question about how you can most safely comply with their directions might help their peace of mind (and your safety) a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
War Games and Sneakers are indeed much more similar. Both are so awesome that I refuse to pit them in opposing corners, but rather team them together in a juggernaut of awesome.
An internet-based poll is extremely vulnerable to a very motivated minority. Examples include Stephen Colbert's trolling of NASA, or 4chan's abuse of many other polls.
How do you know they're planted by the DOD, rather than simply programming mistakes that no one caught?
I'm not sure why I was modded a troll; I'll try to explain better.
Richard said, "Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 were driveling pieces of shit with huge gaping lies throughout." Jerry rebutted by saying, "I'm eagerly awaiting your own movie exposing these "lies"".
I was merely pointing out that that was a poor rebuttal. Whether or not one's made a movie is not a basis for truth, or a defense. Moore may have filled his movies with lies, or not -- I don't know, I haven't seen them. I'm merely saying that denigrating someone's opinion because they haven't made their argument in a particular manner (by making a film) is a case of attacking the messenger, rather than the message.
"let's kill lawyers and MBAs": Not insightful.
What's insightful is that most laws and legal documents these days are very ... long. The Declaration of Independence, and the amendments to the US constitution were very well-edited, and pared down to just about the bare words necessary. I could live without the loaded words that $RU used to say that, though.
Given the premise of much of Stranger in a Strange Land, I am pretty sure Heinlein would have subscribed (if he didn't already?) to the "an it harm none ..." principle.
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/the-best-6-sites-to-get-free-ebooks/
which has links for several others, including:
http://www.manybooks.net/
http://www.feedbooks.com/
http://www.booksinmyphone.com/
I'm even happier that I'm buying a Nook Color, then.
With your contacts on the web, and your e-mail stored online, or your friends stored via the IM service (or Facebook), it doesn't matter if your phone gets dropped/flushed/broken: Get a new one, log into the services, and viola! All your stuff is accessible.
If my smartphone (if I had one) broke, I could still contact my wife for my backup (if I had one): I know her phone number, and could e-mail her too. Short of making emergency calls on the highway (for which there's often a call box nearby), I can wait until I get home to replace my phone or PDA (if I had one). It's possible this is because I don't use them as extensively as you do, though, so I can tolerate being without more easily.
I think many of us would like to subscribe to your alternate-universe Netflix.
It applies universally to people of any time. The perspective is just different.
If someone came up to me and said, "hey, I can cure that bleeding contusion where you hit your head on the branch", and then healed it by touching it, or were to seamlessly step through a wall (or out of thin air), or became invisible, I'd think it was magic. That is, I'd want to believe it was technology (as then I could do it too), would look for the gimmick, but would be as unable to understand what was happening as I would be if it were magic. In fact, I couldn't tell the difference between someone using some Tesla-riffic teleportation device and magic.
Once I understand the science and technology (or understand thoroughly that it IS technology), it's not magic anymore. Lightsaber: not magic. Transporter room: not magic. Mind reading? Teleportation? Personal flight? Magic until I see otherwise. (I say a lightsaber or transporter aren't magic, because they're portrayed as being technological tools -- even if we'd need nigh-magic to get it to happen today.)
And yet, I have a hard time wanting to watch it, because it's basically watching him play rock-em-sock-em robots with a controller on the side of the stage. I read a short story whose name I can't remember that would have been jaw-droppingly better, I suspect. (In it, the former-boxer was able to inhabit robot bodies for fighting, and then had that ability taken away. It was a good read, I wish I could link it. Or even name it, or the author.)
A more honest answer might be to play F.E.A.R. (as it has many Jumpy portions) in the dark, or without quicksaves. I had a few moments like that in Borderlands, too, inronically: despite having a respawn capability, something about having giant 20-foot spiders leaping out of the ground all around me would startle the hell out of me.
I agree, though. Wolfenstein unnerved me in a way which few shooters have since. In a way I think it's because they are MORE realistic portrayals. The enemies behave like humans, I can have some semblance of stealth, etc. I can use tactics, rather than playing zombie-survival-mode.
Han shooting second doesn't ruin the movie for me, but it certainly changes our initial perception of him. He's now defending himself, rather than shooting a bounty hunter in cold blood. Rather than shooting to keep from being killed, he originally was portrayed as having intended to shoot Greedo all along (or, that's how I understood it).
His initial portrayal was much more selfish and amoral. You can see it when he's saying things like, "I don't care about your rebellion, I'm just in this for the money", or how he doesn't want to rescue Leia until he hears she's rich. All along he's trying to pay back Jabba -- which is interesting, because I'd never noticed the dialogue about that in ANH and ESB until recently.
Granted, his character changes/grows a lot over the movies, but the remade ANH has him starting at a much less rogue-like position than before.
I saw Avatar twice in 2D, and it was still breathtaking. I wasn't expecting a deep story, but rather a visual spectacle with Action. I wasn't disappointed. I still want to see it in 3D. Those bioluminescent plants were awesome.
More importantly, often the best special effects are the ones that are NOT visually glamorous. For example, in Forrest Gump, they did some awesome stuff to make Gary Sinise look like he'd had his leg(s?) amputated. It was amazing. It was nearly invisible in the movie. If I hadn't known that Gary Sinise had both his legs, I'd have thought they had hired an actor without legs.
For what it's worth, there are certainly Americans who understand that some parts of the rest of the world doesn't want us there, and that much of our foreign policy woes are directly related to our past (and current) meddlings in local politics. Also, not all of us feel we're there to "civilize" you.
"I like your fiscal policy, but think that your stance on X is pure lunacy."
We punish the car-creators when they malfunction. When Bob runs down a row of kindergarteners on purpose, he gets punished, not Ford.
Guns killing people is a case of the user causing the weapon to function perfectly, in a manner and direction which is (usually) illegal. Guns are designed to impart lots of kinetic energy to a projectile, while keeping the user safe from harm (barrel exploding, etc) and keeping the projectile's trajectory as predictable as possible.
If someone wants to murder someone, they'll find a way -- whether they use a gun, poison, a knife, a bow-and-arrow, a trebuchet, or a bus. It seems pretty wilfully obtuse to want to punish gun-makers for the fact that some of their creations are used illegally. The gun (and manufacturer) has no way of determining the legality of its use: that's for the user to understand. Guns can't tell whether you're pointing them at the guy raping your wife (likely to be legal), or whether they're pointed at the driver in the car next to you who flipped you off (Likely not legal).
Punish the user for poor moral choices. Don't blame the tool.
Most civilians (and non-police) that buy bullets are doing so to go hunting or target-shooting. (OK, gang members might be a counter-example.) If I'm a clerk at Joe's Gun Shop, and someone wants to buy several boxes of rounds, it's pretty unlikely that their reason is to go off and shoot other people. More likely it's to fire them off at the range, or kill some turkeys or rabbits.
Is there a law regulating the sale of ammunition? (Probably.)
The fact that one can produce/film/fund a movie about something doesn't make it more truthful, anymore than being able to paint an assertion on the side of the freeway that "2+2=7" would make it true.
I think it's more a case where you listen to the argument presented, and say, "There's something not quite right about that, and I can't put my finger on it." Either he's missing some alternate explanation, or mis-presenting somethign as fact, or perhaps is assuming that A implies B when in reality they're coincidental. Perhaps he's omitting the counterargument completely and hand-waving that it doesn't matter, rather than addressing the issues. I would get that feeling whenever I'd listen to Rush, or a certain one of my high school teachers. The feeling that If I only had enough time with the internet and a frickin' library, I could lay out exactly the ways in which his argument is flawed. (This is then beaten down by time until I can't remember a specific incident of this, merely that it seemed to happen nearly every day when I listened to Rush.)
I think that's what they mean by "he makes his argument badly". It's infuriating, it gets great ratings, and makes them lots of money to do it that way.
Does she have a glossary so that people who are not already "in the know" as far as her clique's lingo can understand what she means by things like "PIV"? I get that "pomo" is her abbreviation for post-modern, or something related, but she's speaking about all sorts of things which she has presumably already defined, or is working on a shared understanding of meaning, and I haven't a clue what she's talking about half the time. She asserts things like "PIV is dangerous to women", and I keep looking for tooltips or a glossary page.
I can't even tell if I disagree with her, because I have no idea what she's trying to say.
This is why you have the conversation recorded. Assuming it's legal, of course, and that you have a way to make sure that the evidence isn't lost.
I doubt that "most" cops in the US are corrupt, or dickheads. Some are, but I doubt most are. (Let's avoid the side-track of "well then why are they protecting those who are", because we've all heard it before.)
Great point -- however, if one has a weapon of any variety (even one that might be in plain sight), it's wise to tell the officer that before making any moves that might possibly be construed as reaching for a weapon. Things like, "Officer, I am wearing a pistol on my hip, which is near my seatbelt" or "I have a pistol in my glove compartment" or "I have a hunting knife on my belt", followed by a question about how you can most safely comply with their directions might help their peace of mind (and your safety) a lot.