You just don't get it. Because some people cannot take advantage of technology, the bar must be lowered so everyone can lose out. That's the American way - well, for the last couple of decades anyhow.
Seriously though: why should everyone lose out? How does making new visual technology available to the vast majority amount to discrimination? Just as they do with printed books, the blind can ask the publishers for alternatives, be the alternative audio books on CD or (ugh!) tape, podcasts, or braille?
I actually like the newest Trek movie. Some of them I just can't sit through but the latest one was Trek for non-trekkies. I actually went to the theater to see it after reading reviews. It wasn't the same dreck rehashed for the eighteen thousandth time.
who sat through those films and thought, 'I have no idea what's going to happen next?'
Certainly no one who has ever read Spider Man comic books. If you don't know that Spidey wins in the end, he and Mary Jane have an on-again-off-again thing going on, and that he often fights multiple villains at once or even against another hero (usually Daredevil) fairly often, chances are you had no interest in seeing the movie to begin with but just went because your BF or GF wanted to see it.
Spiderman reboot: It's a shame, and unnecessary. Although the back story movie is slightly different from the comics (the premise is a bit more plausible, what the heck would a radioactive spider bite do? I could see a GM virus modifying DNA as remotely plausible) and the timeline is different, I think the movies with Tobey Maguire are by far the best on-screen interpretation of Spider Man. He makes a believable Peter Parker, has the physique for Spidey, is conservative-but-not-nerdy in appearance (but looks almost nerdy in glasses), and is a great actor. Unlike so many comic book character actors, Tobey isn't wooden, and is a versatile actor capable of a wide variety of roles.
I think the Spider Man franchise in its current form should be left untouched cast-wise. There are some really horrible comic book-based movie franchises out there; take the current Batman. In and of itself, it's a decent movie. However, the movie is scripted around Christian Bale's acting. If you see other movies with him, you'll notice he. . speaks. . . like. . . batman. . . in other flicks, notably Terminator Salvation. Basically, Christian seemingly plays himself in costume in the Batman movies.
Superman Returns - I thought that movie was horrible; first of all, Brandon Routh does not make a believable superman. Secondly. it is WAY out of character for Superman to have a bastard child out there. If you know the character, you KNOW he would not only know he has a son, but would be very involved in the child's life. Also, Lois Lane would never fall for anyone but Superman. It was a reboot that went wrong. As corny as some of the Christopher Reeves Superman flicks were (well, the latter two anyhow), he (Reeves) made a believable Superman. He can't be blamed for crappy writers. The first movie was great, the second was okay, then it went downhill. Superman III is watchable, but I never made it through the fourth one. I like to think of it as the Superman franchise's "Highlander II" or "Rocky V;" let's just pretend it doesn't exist. The current Superman franchise needs a reboot. FWIW, my favorite take on Superman was Lois and Clark; only because Dean Cain made a great Superman, and that addressed a lot of questions comic book geeks would ask writers when geeking out, e.g., "does he have to eat?" "how does he shave" and other trivialities you never see in 90-180 minute flicks. I just wish it were a little(read: a lot) less soap opera-ish, and they didn't change the Lex Luthor character as much as they did.
Please don't reboot Spiderman for the sake of ADHD folks.
Do you have a suggestion for a non half-assed solution to prevent copyright infringement?
Absolutely! Just create only movies as good as "Son of The Mask," "Gigli" or "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and you will never have to worry about anyone infringing your copyrights.
My iPhone can connect to exchange, gmail, yahoo, aol, standard imap or pop and smtp, My email push updates depend on only having a data connection, and having my iPhone charged up.
I'm an adult. I can control what I view on Safari during the day. It's called personal responsibility, or more specifically, self control. Content filtering is unnecessary.
Strong passwords? That is enforced by server policies on Linux, on the groupware service, and by Windows.
VPN? Internal web sites? the iPhone comes with VPN, allowing me to connect to the office whenever required. 24x7 if desired.
Regarding cameras and indiscretions: again, I'm an adult. Personal responsibility. Self control.
I know $16 isn't much, but really how much do you think is reasonable for a few months of p2p interruption on a residential cable line?
Considering they did that while at the same time advertising "unlimited internet" it should be worth the monthly fee x however many months (counting even fractional months as 1 month) the interruptions occurred. Of course, if you were smart enough to block RST packets on the affected ports, there really isn't much to complain about.
Warnings should be more accurate. "There may be nitrogen present in the air" is absurd because we are always breathing 80% nitrogen already (well, isn't it really more like 79%?). What they should say is "Warning: Nitrogen leaks may displace oxygen, resulting in asphyxiation" or something less inaccurate and vague than "there may be nitrogen present." Sure, the intent is good, but the implementation is retarded.
They are both computer software though, so Firebird (the database) had every right and obligation to protect their name. It's not like Firebird (the database company) was suing a mom & pop shop which makes handmade socks or sandwiches or something else in an unrelated industry.
If the pontifus maximus (or "the pope") is indeed the vicar of christ, I wonder what Yeshua the messiah ("Jesus Christ") thinks of copyrighting the message of the gospel and anything related to it.
What was it he said, oh, yes, go forth and spread the good news. He never once said "spread the good news, but only these romans and jews, not those blacks or anglo-saxons" nor did he ever say to otherwise restrict spreading of the good news in any way, shape, or form.
If one is a Christian (be it Catholic, Baptist, protestant, messianic jew) one really has to question what the heck the goal of the pope is, if that pope is trying to restrict the message or trying to claim ownership of anything even tangentally related to it.One might even think that the goal of the vatican is the lust of money and power, and not actually 'saving' people from 'hell' (or really, from the 'lake of fire' since 'hell' merely refers to the grave, if you refer to the original Hebrew and Greek).
The Vatican might try to claim that exclusivity of the word, related symbols, etc. is required in order to validate the authenticity of the material, but what did Christ himself say about that? He said that his people are known by their love for one another. Never once did he mention a pontifus maximus, a fish-head hat, or any roman-era symbols.
I think it is UAW influence which is killing the Saab offers. They (GM) have been receiving GREAT offers, and the only other option on the table is to kill off the brand. When they can get half a million for the brand, or the other option is to take a total loss, and they choose the total loss option, there is obviously something fishy and corrupt involved.
Slashdot Mirror
You just don't get it. Because some people cannot take advantage of technology, the bar must be lowered so everyone can lose out. That's the American way - well, for the last couple of decades anyhow.
Seriously though: why should everyone lose out? How does making new visual technology available to the vast majority amount to discrimination? Just as they do with printed books, the blind can ask the publishers for alternatives, be the alternative audio books on CD or (ugh!) tape, podcasts, or braille?
Yes, and even burn in "resistant" plasma screens aren't resistant to it at all.
Louis? Superman turned gay?
I actually like the newest Trek movie. Some of them I just can't sit through but the latest one was Trek for non-trekkies. I actually went to the theater to see it after reading reviews. It wasn't the same dreck rehashed for the eighteen thousandth time.
Certainly no one who has ever read Spider Man comic books. If you don't know that Spidey wins in the end, he and Mary Jane have an on-again-off-again thing going on, and that he often fights multiple villains at once or even against another hero (usually Daredevil) fairly often, chances are you had no interest in seeing the movie to begin with but just went because your BF or GF wanted to see it.
. . . stuff like that happens in the comic books. Why is fighting multiple villains out of place in a comic book movie?
Spiderman reboot: It's a shame, and unnecessary. Although the back story movie is slightly different from the comics (the premise is a bit more plausible, what the heck would a radioactive spider bite do? I could see a GM virus modifying DNA as remotely plausible) and the timeline is different, I think the movies with Tobey Maguire are by far the best on-screen interpretation of Spider Man. He makes a believable Peter Parker, has the physique for Spidey, is conservative-but-not-nerdy in appearance (but looks almost nerdy in glasses), and is a great actor. Unlike so many comic book character actors, Tobey isn't wooden, and is a versatile actor capable of a wide variety of roles.
I think the Spider Man franchise in its current form should be left untouched cast-wise. There are some really horrible comic book-based movie franchises out there; take the current Batman. In and of itself, it's a decent movie. However, the movie is scripted around Christian Bale's acting. If you see other movies with him, you'll notice he. . speaks. . . like. . . batman. . . in other flicks, notably Terminator Salvation. Basically, Christian seemingly plays himself in costume in the Batman movies.
Superman Returns - I thought that movie was horrible; first of all, Brandon Routh does not make a believable superman. Secondly. it is WAY out of character for Superman to have a bastard child out there. If you know the character, you KNOW he would not only know he has a son, but would be very involved in the child's life. Also, Lois Lane would never fall for anyone but Superman. It was a reboot that went wrong. As corny as some of the Christopher Reeves Superman flicks were (well, the latter two anyhow), he (Reeves) made a believable Superman. He can't be blamed for crappy writers. The first movie was great, the second was okay, then it went downhill. Superman III is watchable, but I never made it through the fourth one. I like to think of it as the Superman franchise's "Highlander II" or "Rocky V;" let's just pretend it doesn't exist. The current Superman franchise needs a reboot. FWIW, my favorite take on Superman was Lois and Clark; only because Dean Cain made a great Superman, and that addressed a lot of questions comic book geeks would ask writers when geeking out, e.g., "does he have to eat?" "how does he shave" and other trivialities you never see in 90-180 minute flicks. I just wish it were a little(read: a lot) less soap opera-ish, and they didn't change the Lex Luthor character as much as they did.
Please don't reboot Spiderman for the sake of ADHD folks.
re: No development of any kind, anywhere, under any circumstances, ever.
You're thinking "banana" which means "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone"
Maybe now Al Gore will finally find Manbearpig!
Absolutely! Just create only movies as good as "Son of The Mask," "Gigli" or "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and you will never have to worry about anyone infringing your copyrights.
The Jetsons lied to us!
RIM employees had mod points yesterday!
The summary and article misspelled "evercrack" ;)
But, if RIM didn't offer those services, how could they nickel and dime customers?
My iPhone can connect to exchange, gmail, yahoo, aol, standard imap or pop and smtp, My email push updates depend on only having a data connection, and having my iPhone charged up.
I'm an adult. I can control what I view on Safari during the day. It's called personal responsibility, or more specifically, self control. Content filtering is unnecessary.
Strong passwords? That is enforced by server policies on Linux, on the groupware service, and by Windows.
VPN? Internal web sites? the iPhone comes with VPN, allowing me to connect to the office whenever required. 24x7 if desired.
Regarding cameras and indiscretions: again, I'm an adult. Personal responsibility. Self control.
Considering they did that while at the same time advertising "unlimited internet" it should be worth the monthly fee x however many months (counting even fractional months as 1 month) the interruptions occurred. Of course, if you were smart enough to block RST packets on the affected ports, there really isn't much to complain about.
They're taking cues from the global warming alarmists.
SHOW US THE DATA.
Warnings should be more accurate. "There may be nitrogen present in the air" is absurd because we are always breathing 80% nitrogen already (well, isn't it really more like 79%?). What they should say is "Warning: Nitrogen leaks may displace oxygen, resulting in asphyxiation" or something less inaccurate and vague than "there may be nitrogen present." Sure, the intent is good, but the implementation is retarded.
They're running safety training about equipment involving compressed gases and don't realize that we are always breathing 80% nitrogen already?!
Stacker.
They are both computer software though, so Firebird (the database) had every right and obligation to protect their name. It's not like Firebird (the database company) was suing a mom & pop shop which makes handmade socks or sandwiches or something else in an unrelated industry.
If the pontifus maximus (or "the pope") is indeed the vicar of christ, I wonder what Yeshua the messiah ("Jesus Christ") thinks of copyrighting the message of the gospel and anything related to it.
What was it he said, oh, yes, go forth and spread the good news. He never once said "spread the good news, but only these romans and jews, not those blacks or anglo-saxons" nor did he ever say to otherwise restrict spreading of the good news in any way, shape, or form.
If one is a Christian (be it Catholic, Baptist, protestant, messianic jew) one really has to question what the heck the goal of the pope is, if that pope is trying to restrict the message or trying to claim ownership of anything even tangentally related to it.One might even think that the goal of the vatican is the lust of money and power, and not actually 'saving' people from 'hell' (or really, from the 'lake of fire' since 'hell' merely refers to the grave, if you refer to the original Hebrew and Greek).
The Vatican might try to claim that exclusivity of the word, related symbols, etc. is required in order to validate the authenticity of the material, but what did Christ himself say about that? He said that his people are known by their love for one another. Never once did he mention a pontifus maximus, a fish-head hat, or any roman-era symbols.
I think it is UAW influence which is killing the Saab offers. They (GM) have been receiving GREAT offers, and the only other option on the table is to kill off the brand. When they can get half a million for the brand, or the other option is to take a total loss, and they choose the total loss option, there is obviously something fishy and corrupt involved.
The 9-7 model was killed off within the last couple of months.
The 9-2 was not very popular at all. Heck even the 9-7 didn't catch on.
Saab aficionados want a Saab, not a rebadged $foo.