I predict that predictions made for 2004 will be no more accurate than the predictions that were made for any other year, and we should all stop wasting our time.
People wouldn't make so many predictions if they were forced to wear a signboard at the end of the year with a list of all the predictions they made that didn't come true. Say, that sounds like an idea....
No, not really. All musical tastes are 100% subjective. By definition, it's not even possible for there to be objective criteria for the quality of music. It pisses me off when stupid mother fuckers claim that music A is "better" than music B, when what they *mean* is that they like music A better than music B.
I understand that the story referenced in the article is just someone's little joke. Reading it shows that he's not taking it seriously, so don't think I'm attacking him. Who I'm attacking are the assholes whose idea of music criticism consists of saying "That album sucks." They can't elaborate on it; they can't tell you what it is they don't like about it. And they think that not only does it suck, but it's not even conceivable that someone could like it.
I know a guy who -- honestly and truly -- believes that not only can music be objectively better or worse than other music, but that he is the only person in the world who can accurately determine the quality of music. If you tell him you like music that he doesn't like, he will tell you that you are wrong. He won't accept that you just have different tastes; he will try to prove to you (with logic that is so insanely twisted that it is literally unprintable) that you do not actually like that music, you're just deluding yourself. He does this with movies, too.
And another goddamn thing: People who claim that all music these days is crap compared to "the old days" are always and invariably full of shit. When pushed, they'll admit that there's a few things they like these days, but that the majority of what's released is just complete and total shit. And no matter how thoroughly you PROVE to them that the ratio of good music to shit music released has been constant forever (this is true for all artistic endeavours: movies, music, books, art, video games, etc.), they always insist that everything was better back in the day. They'll just ignore you when you show them all the absolute crap that was released back at the same time as their favorite stuff.
As a quick comparison, in the past year, three birds have died after running into the living-room window in my house. Those turbines are downright safe!
And your living room window has a bird death rate nineteen times higher than one of these turbines. Clearly your house must be demolished!:)
Just put up a giant scarecrow in the middle of the turbine farm.
Yeah, let's erect an enormous scarecrow amidst a bunch of energy-generating machines. First time there's a lightning storm you just know there's gonna be some Frankenstein action going on, and then we've got a hundred-foot scarecrow rampaging across California, slashing budget programs and repealing taxes left and right... wait, that's the governor.
On the plus side, we'd have to get Godzilla and Mothra to team up against the scarecrow, so, it wouldn't be a complete loss.
This story was posted under the "Music" category. Clearly this is not going to qualify as "music" by any sane standard. I hereby request that Slashdot create a "Sign of the Apocalypse" category for any story that involves William Shatner "singing."
The logo for the "Sign of the Apocalypse" should obviously be a tambourine, man.
Okay. So let's say we suddenly (magically) decide to revoke all those exceptions that the Supreme Court has come up with over the years. Now it's completely legal for me to slander and libel you at will, and there's nothing you can do about it except try to slander and libel me back (and if I don't care about my reputation, that will do you little good).
Or, I can follow you around all day and all night, insulting and belittling you, nonstop, and you can't do anything legal to make me stop. You can't have me arrested for harassment.
What would really happen is that there would be a lot more violence, since the people on the receiving end of all this harassment would simply attack -- physically -- those who were harassing them. There would be a great deal more chaos in society. Have you ever even READ any of the SCOTUS decisions about these topics? Did it ever occur to you that there might be a need that supersedes even the framers' intent? Did it ever occur to you that the framers were not gods, and we do not simply do everything they say without question?
In some cases however, this person should prepare to be held responsable for the consequences of his speech.
How about firing a gun off into a crowd? If I don't hit anybody, should I be punished? After all, there are no consequences if I don't hit anyone. Does it make a difference if I was trying to hit people, or was trying not to?
If this is not acceptable, then why would it be acceptable for any other kind of activity? How likely must it be that an action will harm someone before you can punish me based on the act and not just the consequences?
I won't rest until the following exchange can happen in real life:
[Bender and Fry in Bender's apartment.] Bender: [while sleeping] Kill all humans, kill all humans, must kill all hu... Fry: [shakes him] Bender wake up! Bender: I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it. Fry: Listen, Bender, uh... where's your bathroom? Bender: Bath-what? Fry: Bathroom. Bender: What room? Fry: Bathroom! Bender: What what? Fry: Aaah, never mind. [Bender shuts himself down to sleep, Fry lies on the floor] Bender: [while sleeping] Hey, sexy mama... Wanna kill all humans?
Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted...
Amen to that! Ever since game developers stopped creating games outside of the fantasy genre, the video game industry has been stagnant. I mean, let's look at a list of a few recent fantasy games. They all look the same to me:
Grand Theft Auto
Call of Duty
Command and Conquer: Generals
Planetside
Project Gotham Racing
</sarcasm>
And never mind the imbecilic "logic" of the quote above, which implies that no two game developers should ever make a game in the same genre. (It also implies that it's a relatively simple thing to invent a new game genre. Yeah. Put up or shut up.)
At precisely what point does a display pass from "tasteful decoration" to "utter nonsense"? 100 lights? 200? 500? A thousand? Two thousand? Five? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred thousand? Does it depend on the size of the building being decorated? The number of different colors used? The point at which it changes from one to the other is entirely arbitrary and subjective.
The base point is this. As soon as something I can personally say out loud becomes Illegal, the whole of my freedom of speech is gone.
By inference, you believe that we should be able to slander and libel other people without retribution; to incite riots or to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire); and do all of the other things that the various Supreme Courts have, over the years, defined as valid exceptions to the First Amendment? If so, can you present a cogent argument as to why the Supreme Court was wrong all those times?
I fail to see how this type of display really has much to do with the spirit of Christmas.
Don't be dense. You know as well as anyone that lighting displays have been associated with Christmas for more than half a century. This doesn't mean they're a good idea, or a good use of resources (or vice versa), but acting like you don't understand why someone would put up lights as Christmas is just being silly.
The thing that bugs me about predictions like this is, who's going to remember that they prediced this in 12 years if they're wrong (which they're likely to be)? Even if they're still around, that is...
so who should you trust with your data, the people that can't even remember to renew their own domain registrations, or the people that keep bailing them out?
Much as I hate Microsoft, this is not a rational argument. The guys who wrote this "patch" are not the ones who paid for Microsoft's domain registrations. Yes, I want Redmond to fall into a giant sinkhole, but irrational, zealous logic doesn't help anyone.
Eventually, we all know, for a fact, whether or not God exists.
Not quite. If God doesn't exist, we never find out, because we die, and we're dead, and incapable of knowing anything.
I would say your incapable of comprehending a universe with God.
Demonstrably false. I believed in God until I was 13. Did I somehow magically lose the ability to comprehend a universe with a God as I got older? No. I'm quite capable of comprehending a universe with a God, but like any fully rational person, I refuse to accept the existence of something without sufficient evidence.
I would wager there are a great many thing you believe exist, which you can't prove.
No, there really isn't anything I believe in that could never be proven. If you think I'm wrong (and I'm positive that you do), please name them, because I've scoured my memory and am coming up blank.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we no longer like the moon: The moon is our enemy and must be destroyed..
I predict that predictions made for 2004 will be no more accurate than the predictions that were made for any other year, and we should all stop wasting our time.
People wouldn't make so many predictions if they were forced to wear a signboard at the end of the year with a list of all the predictions they made that didn't come true. Say, that sounds like an idea....
No, not really. All musical tastes are 100% subjective. By definition, it's not even possible for there to be objective criteria for the quality of music. It pisses me off when stupid mother fuckers claim that music A is "better" than music B, when what they *mean* is that they like music A better than music B.
I understand that the story referenced in the article is just someone's little joke. Reading it shows that he's not taking it seriously, so don't think I'm attacking him. Who I'm attacking are the assholes whose idea of music criticism consists of saying "That album sucks." They can't elaborate on it; they can't tell you what it is they don't like about it. And they think that not only does it suck, but it's not even conceivable that someone could like it.
I know a guy who -- honestly and truly -- believes that not only can music be objectively better or worse than other music, but that he is the only person in the world who can accurately determine the quality of music. If you tell him you like music that he doesn't like, he will tell you that you are wrong. He won't accept that you just have different tastes; he will try to prove to you (with logic that is so insanely twisted that it is literally unprintable) that you do not actually like that music, you're just deluding yourself. He does this with movies, too.
And another goddamn thing: People who claim that all music these days is crap compared to "the old days" are always and invariably full of shit. When pushed, they'll admit that there's a few things they like these days, but that the majority of what's released is just complete and total shit. And no matter how thoroughly you PROVE to them that the ratio of good music to shit music released has been constant forever (this is true for all artistic endeavours: movies, music, books, art, video games, etc.), they always insist that everything was better back in the day. They'll just ignore you when you show them all the absolute crap that was released back at the same time as their favorite stuff.
*huff puff* Okay, I'm done now.
</rant>
On the plus side, we'd have to get Godzilla and Mothra to team up against the scarecrow, so, it wouldn't be a complete loss.
This story was posted under the "Music" category. Clearly this is not going to qualify as "music" by any sane standard. I hereby request that Slashdot create a "Sign of the Apocalypse" category for any story that involves William Shatner "singing."
The logo for the "Sign of the Apocalypse" should obviously be a tambourine, man.
I believe that this article was originally posted in SPY Magazine in, I think, 1990. It was titled, "No, Virginia, There Really Isn't a Santa Claus."
Don't be stupid. If there are homicidal robots around, you can be guaranteed that I'll have used mine on you long before you ever get one. :)
Okay. So let's say we suddenly (magically) decide to revoke all those exceptions that the Supreme Court has come up with over the years. Now it's completely legal for me to slander and libel you at will, and there's nothing you can do about it except try to slander and libel me back (and if I don't care about my reputation, that will do you little good).
Or, I can follow you around all day and all night, insulting and belittling you, nonstop, and you can't do anything legal to make me stop. You can't have me arrested for harassment.
What would really happen is that there would be a lot more violence, since the people on the receiving end of all this harassment would simply attack -- physically -- those who were harassing them. There would be a great deal more chaos in society. Have you ever even READ any of the SCOTUS decisions about these topics? Did it ever occur to you that there might be a need that supersedes even the framers' intent? Did it ever occur to you that the framers were not gods, and we do not simply do everything they say without question?
If this is not acceptable, then why would it be acceptable for any other kind of activity? How likely must it be that an action will harm someone before you can punish me based on the act and not just the consequences?
I won't rest until the following exchange can happen in real life:
[Bender and Fry in Bender's apartment.]
Bender: [while sleeping] Kill all humans, kill all humans, must kill all hu...
Fry: [shakes him] Bender wake up!
Bender: I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it.
Fry: Listen, Bender, uh... where's your bathroom?
Bender: Bath-what?
Fry: Bathroom.
Bender: What room?
Fry: Bathroom!
Bender: What what?
Fry: Aaah, never mind.
[Bender shuts himself down to sleep, Fry lies on the floor]
Bender: [while sleeping] Hey, sexy mama... Wanna kill all humans?
- Grand Theft Auto
- Call of Duty
- Command and Conquer: Generals
- Planetside
- Project Gotham Racing
</sarcasm>And never mind the imbecilic "logic" of the quote above, which implies that no two game developers should ever make a game in the same genre. (It also implies that it's a relatively simple thing to invent a new game genre. Yeah. Put up or shut up.)
At precisely what point does a display pass from "tasteful decoration" to "utter nonsense"? 100 lights? 200? 500? A thousand? Two thousand? Five? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred thousand? Does it depend on the size of the building being decorated? The number of different colors used? The point at which it changes from one to the other is entirely arbitrary and subjective.
Blur's involved? WOO HOO!
(wonders how many people will get it)
The thing that bugs me about predictions like this is, who's going to remember that they prediced this in 12 years if they're wrong (which they're likely to be)? Even if they're still around, that is...
Why choose the lesser evil? Cthulhu in 2004!
Not all geeks love caffeine. I like the smell of coffee but I hate the taste.