Ya. I've always wondered if the US gives 2 shits about other's IP, e.g. anime, J/K-pop, korean horror, bollywood, european indie music, indie flicks like OM BAK before they were officially released, etc. Seems hypocritical if you ask me.
Ong-bak (2003) doesn't seem so indie to me. Their production company Sahamongkolfilm Co. has produced and distributed more than 30 films between late 90s and the present.
But yes, I think the South America and Asia makes most of the better films nowadays. Last two films I saw were Tropa de Elite 2 (Brazil) and El Aura (Argentina), both were pretty good.
It's been quite some time when I last watched anything from Hollywood. Frankly, I don't care what happens to big studios there. Maybe if they went bust we would start to see some quality American films again. That would be a good thing, eh? What they produce now is just mass consumer goods targeted to dumb people with short attention spans. It's the McDonalds of the movie industry. (emphasis on the word industry)
While the film takes no position either pro-war or anti-war, the inhumanity of war has never been shown more clearly and the soldiers boasting and laughter after obliterating a wounded enemy while high on adrenaline, caused considerable debate about appropriate military behavior back home in Denmark. Depending on your point of view the soldiers are either making a difference or perpetuating atrocities in an unwinnable war. What does become clear, however, is the bond formed by the men and their lack of questioning of their mission. Like adolescents on a drunken rampage, they are excited by the thrill of the moment. We owe Metz a debt of gratitude for showing us the mindless, sadistic, and dehumanizing behavior that war can induce. Armadillo stands as one of the most visceral and frightening documentaries about combat ever made.
People are human, and react humanely when subjected to imagery consisting of people actually suffering.
Sometimes humans are capable and not only capabable but actually enjoy killing and torturing people.
Rounding up people in ditches and machine gunning them down. Raping people and forcing their family members to watch etc. (WW2, Vietnam...) All of this is and similar acts have been done many times in human history.
People are very flexible. If you followed what happens in wars you would notice it quite fast. There you have lots of people who have to learn how to cope with killing others, not only many learn how to get along with it, but some get addicted to the high they get from killing and actively seek such excitement.
Even right now you I hear news of soldiers gunning down protesters in Libya, shooting them with sniper rifles etc. What I want to say is that obiviously not all people share your feeling of compassion and can identify with the victim.
I understand that people who like Symbian would consider the "Plan B" superior from their own personal "I finally get a MeeGo phone" point of view, but it was fairly unrealistic given the current state of Nokia. The likely result would have been a Nokia bankrupt or dramatically weakened and unable to produce the kind of phones you want anyway.
Bankrupt? Nokia was still making billions of profit per year. It would take several years, probably five or more of straight out losses for bankrupcy.
Their problem was not getting enough growth in profits to please shareholders and losing marketshare to competitions. Which both were natural result of having new players in the market (Apple and Google) and inflexibility of Nokia in directing their enourmous resouces where it mattered (to one low end and one modern smartphone OS, or even better, to something that could be scaled for both).
And what EXACTLY were they supposed to do otherwise, hmmm? For all the big talk here nobody seems to want to accept reality. Nokia is bleeding to death, dumb phones are going the way of 8-tracks (even the third world is starting to have home grown smartphones which all predict will kill the dumb phone), android is beyond saturated, MeeGo is a turd, and Apple and HP won't sell iOS and WebOS respectively.
Nokia is a world market leader in mobile phones. They were doing not so well, but bleeding to death is quite far from it.
Certainly they were not doing badly enough to warrant outsourcing whole software development out of coutry to Microsoft. By this Nokia has reduced itself to mere commodity hardware manufacturer, no different from LG, RIM and others.
And how to you think that WP7 helps Nokia to keep their domination of low end markets? It doesn't. a) WP7 won't run on such hardware. b) licencing fees are too expensice when every dollar counts. Android however without licencing fees is a viable option to Chinese manufacturers of cheap feature phones and will slowly begin conquering low end markets from s40. Symbian could have been possible contender at low end, but now it is dumped alltogether.
Nokia had a smartphone OS of it's own in Maemo, but they dumped it when it was almost ready and after releasing only one phone on it! Then about a year ago they went on to develop MeeGo instead. Either of these would have been far better choice than WP7.
When publishing the Microsoft deal Elop said that the reason for switching WP7 is that MeeGo is not ready and Symbian is not competitive. How does WP7 remedy this, with no new phones in 2011? Atleast (and with limited resources allocated to it) there is supposedly one MeeGo phone coming out from Nokia this year.
Instead of giving up software R&D and laying off thousands of software engineers (and hurting Finnish society in progress) they could have put all these resources to MeeGo and Qt. I think after two years they would have been far better off.
Think about it. WP7 is still missing basic features like multitasking and cut & paste, while Google and Apple are actually pushing new concepts to the market. In 2012 when first Nokia phones with WP7 are out WP7 is still playing catch up. How do you think Nokia is going to maintain it's position or even stay as healthy company as their sales crash during in 2011? Afterall who on earth will buy Symbian phones when it's future is doomed and the new Nokia CEO is calling it junk openly.
IMHO this MS deal is almost as good as suicide for Nokia.
...and yes the ipw2200 driver works out of the box with Debian and firmware is not needed. If it was it's just one apt-get install firmware-ipw2x00 away and even before (around 2004 when I started using linux) it was pretty straightforward to compile and install. Not much harder than posting on slashdot and complaining that it doesn't work out of the box.
Al-Jazeera says that opposition groups have agreed to form a comission together to take the lead until elections are held.
What they need now is for Mubarak to step down. Though I didn't entirely understand why it's even necessary. Mubarak has no legitimacy in eyes of the people of Egypt and that's what matters, right? People and opposition could just seize the moment and declare a new government. Who cares if some old man hiding near Israeli border thinks he's still a president. (Mubarak is not even in Cairo) One can't be a president without the people.
[blockquote]to avoid having to save the world a third time.[/blockquote]
Why is this repeated by US citizens over and over.
Could you elaborate how have you saved rest of us, even once? Such self-righteousness comes out very arrogant.
I just wanted to add that if anything the relatively high number of leaks from the US military/intelligence that has been happening recently tells me that there are people working in these institutions that are worried about what their government is doing. I see that as a positive thing. More indoctrinated people (think about dictatorships) are less likely to do so.
One reason why we likely won't see numerous leaks coming from China is that Wikileaks is not very well known there (it's an english language web site). Also whatever there is at Wikileaks about China right now is blocked by the great firewall. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373626,00.asp
WHen it comes to Russians one must remember that they very short history of Democracy (if any). People are used to strong rulers and quite apathic about their chances to affect politics. Most of the press is loyal to the government and bad things tend to happen to those who aren't. There would be no problems for getting rid of any leaker inside government organizations and for good. It's one thing to face possibility of going to jail (what might happen in western countries) and another to be killed by some thugs (what might happen in russia) and that makes whole lot of difference in peoples decisions.
3) Wikileaks only care about or chooses to publish secrets for US entities, not foreign. This is likely.
There have been numerous leaks from other governments and organizations. My favorite one was a secret Kenyan goverment report that revealed president Daniel arap Moi stealing over billion USD from the state. Leak gained lots of attention in Kenyan press and spoiled arap Moi's chances to get re-elected. Some other stuff that interested me as Finnish national were leaks about Finnish government's internet censorship and also soon to be released information of some Finnish political cables between two former ministers.
Maybe you only see stuff that US media is reporting? If you take a look at foreign news sources (I understand it might be hard due to language issues) or bother to dig into it yourself you'll soon notice that it's not everything that WikiLeaks releases.
I assume that they publish most of leaked documents where the sources can be verified.
I'm somewhat amused of these anti-american accusations that pretty much everyone who criticizes the US government in form or another is subjected to on internet forums. Wasn't it recent US president who was so eager to make it clear for everyone that "You are either with us or against us"? Seems like many people in US have taken that advice to their hearts.
In recent news from the same front the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says WikiLeaks should be officially designated as a terrorist organization. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html
If this goes through, whatever you do, please don't preach to the rest of the world about freedom.
And I'm not lying about socialism. As Judge Napolitano once put it, "A man knocks on your door and he holds a gun. He demands 20% of your paycheck, so he can give it to the poor. That's called theft, even if the man is Uncle Sam."
You have no more right to steal my labor, than the old 1700s and 1800s white men had a right to steal labor from the black men. When a man works, he deserves to get paid AND he deserves to be able to keep that payment for himself, except for a few necessary things (such as an army to protect his home from invasion).
So better get busy building your private roads and buying a right to use roads owned by someone else. And while at it you probably also have to pay for healthcare, some sort of school to get your children educated and buy protection from mercenary police or army to defend yourself. Ofcourse if you're out of money then you are pretty much out of luck too. No healthcare, no protection for your legal rights, no possibility to move, no school for your chilren. Have you ever thought why such capitalist state of your dreams doesn't exist? Maybe, because such slavery is deemed to fail sooner or later.
To me it seems that there are lots of people in the US whose idea of capitalism and socialism is very contrasted, while any realistically working state has to be somewhere in between the two extremes. Thinking of it, such polarized views must be a result of cold-war propaganda. When you say socialism, look at your own state built infrastuctures or think places like Scandinavian countries. Their policy has been lot more socialistic than for example China's. In China money matters even more than it does in the US and you're hard pressed to find any social support networks, free education or healthcare. Socialism is only a word facade for Chinese goverment.
That's bullshit. Someone who blows up teenagers is a terrorist. Doesn't matter if they are on my side or your side.
If that's your opinion, then every war is full of terrorists on both sides. People generally don't define the word terrorist that way, which is when "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" applies. It doesn't make much difference if one bombs those teenagers from an airplane flying at 20kft or right from the street. War is done by means available and all sides use tactics they deem effective.
Putting definitions aside I kind of agree with you. Most wars not justifiable and only breed more violence. What I wanted to alleviate though is that every side involved in a conflict wants to take the moral high ground and tries to justify their actions by greater good.
Slashdot Mirror
Ong-bak (2003) doesn't seem so indie to me. Their production company Sahamongkolfilm Co. has produced and distributed more than 30 films between late 90s and the present.
But yes, I think the South America and Asia makes most of the better films nowadays. Last two films I saw were Tropa de Elite 2 (Brazil) and El Aura (Argentina), both were pretty good.
It's been quite some time when I last watched anything from Hollywood. Frankly, I don't care what happens to big studios there. Maybe if they went bust we would start to see some quality American films again. That would be a good thing, eh? What they produce now is just mass consumer goods targeted to dumb people with short attention spans. It's the McDonalds of the movie industry. (emphasis on the word industry)
Why would they adopt open formats? They are not stupid.
Have you tried this with any other filesystems (such as ext4) or is the built in GC only aware of NTFS?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640680/
Quote from a review by Howard Schumann:
Sometimes humans are capable and not only capabable but actually enjoy killing and torturing people.
Rounding up people in ditches and machine gunning them down. Raping people and forcing their family members to watch etc. (WW2, Vietnam...) All of this is and similar acts have been done many times in human history.
People are very flexible. If you followed what happens in wars you would notice it quite fast. There you have lots of people who have to learn how to cope with killing others, not only many learn how to get along with it, but some get addicted to the high they get from killing and actively seek such excitement.
Even right now you I hear news of soldiers gunning down protesters in Libya, shooting them with sniper rifles etc. What I want to say is that obiviously not all people share your feeling of compassion and can identify with the victim.
Bankrupt? Nokia was still making billions of profit per year. It would take several years, probably five or more of straight out losses for bankrupcy.
Their problem was not getting enough growth in profits to please shareholders and losing marketshare to competitions. Which both were natural result of having new players in the market (Apple and Google) and inflexibility of Nokia in directing their enourmous resouces where it mattered (to one low end and one modern smartphone OS, or even better, to something that could be scaled for both).
Nokia is a world market leader in mobile phones. They were doing not so well, but bleeding to death is quite far from it.
Certainly they were not doing badly enough to warrant outsourcing whole software development out of coutry to Microsoft. By this Nokia has reduced itself to mere commodity hardware manufacturer, no different from LG, RIM and others.
And how to you think that WP7 helps Nokia to keep their domination of low end markets? It doesn't. a) WP7 won't run on such hardware. b) licencing fees are too expensice when every dollar counts. Android however without licencing fees is a viable option to Chinese manufacturers of cheap feature phones and will slowly begin conquering low end markets from s40. Symbian could have been possible contender at low end, but now it is dumped alltogether.
Nokia had a smartphone OS of it's own in Maemo, but they dumped it when it was almost ready and after releasing only one phone on it! Then about a year ago they went on to develop MeeGo instead. Either of these would have been far better choice than WP7.
When publishing the Microsoft deal Elop said that the reason for switching WP7 is that MeeGo is not ready and Symbian is not competitive. How does WP7 remedy this, with no new phones in 2011? Atleast (and with limited resources allocated to it) there is supposedly one MeeGo phone coming out from Nokia this year. Instead of giving up software R&D and laying off thousands of software engineers (and hurting Finnish society in progress) they could have put all these resources to MeeGo and Qt. I think after two years they would have been far better off. Think about it. WP7 is still missing basic features like multitasking and cut & paste, while Google and Apple are actually pushing new concepts to the market. In 2012 when first Nokia phones with WP7 are out WP7 is still playing catch up. How do you think Nokia is going to maintain it's position or even stay as healthy company as their sales crash during in 2011? Afterall who on earth will buy Symbian phones when it's future is doomed and the new Nokia CEO is calling it junk openly.
IMHO this MS deal is almost as good as suicide for Nokia.
Jorma Ollila said yesterday on Finnish TV that WP7 phones can be expected in 2012.
Doesn't seem clear to me. Even the Nokia leadership can't agree when their Windows phones are ready.
Germany was a democracy when Nazis came to power. Hitler was democratically elected.
That only works if the module is already loaded. Much better way to check the model would be to use lspci.
...and yes the ipw2200 driver works out of the box with Debian and firmware is not needed. If it was it's just one apt-get install firmware-ipw2x00 away and even before (around 2004 when I started using linux) it was pretty straightforward to compile and install. Not much harder than posting on slashdot and complaining that it doesn't work out of the box.
$ lspci | grep -i wireless 04:02.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation PRO/Wireless 2915ABG [Calexico2] Network Connection (rev 05)
Into memory.
He's already out of town. (In Sharm el-Sheikh to be exact)
Al-Jazeera says that opposition groups have agreed to form a comission together to take the lead until elections are held.
What they need now is for Mubarak to step down. Though I didn't entirely understand why it's even necessary. Mubarak has no legitimacy in eyes of the people of Egypt and that's what matters, right? People and opposition could just seize the moment and declare a new government. Who cares if some old man hiding near Israeli border thinks he's still a president. (Mubarak is not even in Cairo) One can't be a president without the people.
These things just go on and on.
[blockquote]to avoid having to save the world a third time.[/blockquote] Why is this repeated by US citizens over and over. Could you elaborate how have you saved rest of us, even once? Such self-righteousness comes out very arrogant.
It used four zero day vulnerabilities in Windows and the Siemens PLC's (that controls the VFDs) control interface runs on Windows.
As opposed to tight tight situation?
http://annaardin.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/sjustegsmodell-for-laglig-hamnd/
You should have learned by now that it's actions, not the rhetoric, that matters.
This project can be summed up quite simply: the government will not allow the future of the US to be at the mercy of the people.
Fixed that for you.
I just wanted to add that if anything the relatively high number of leaks from the US military/intelligence that has been happening recently tells me that there are people working in these institutions that are worried about what their government is doing. I see that as a positive thing. More indoctrinated people (think about dictatorships) are less likely to do so.
One reason why we likely won't see numerous leaks coming from China is that Wikileaks is not very well known there (it's an english language web site). Also whatever there is at Wikileaks about China right now is blocked by the great firewall. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373626,00.asp
WHen it comes to Russians one must remember that they very short history of Democracy (if any). People are used to strong rulers and quite apathic about their chances to affect politics. Most of the press is loyal to the government and bad things tend to happen to those who aren't. There would be no problems for getting rid of any leaker inside government organizations and for good. It's one thing to face possibility of going to jail (what might happen in western countries) and another to be killed by some thugs (what might happen in russia) and that makes whole lot of difference in peoples decisions.
There have been numerous leaks from other governments and organizations. My favorite one was a secret Kenyan goverment report that revealed president Daniel arap Moi stealing over billion USD from the state. Leak gained lots of attention in Kenyan press and spoiled arap Moi's chances to get re-elected. Some other stuff that interested me as Finnish national were leaks about Finnish government's internet censorship and also soon to be released information of some Finnish political cables between two former ministers.
Maybe you only see stuff that US media is reporting? If you take a look at foreign news sources (I understand it might be hard due to language issues) or bother to dig into it yourself you'll soon notice that it's not everything that WikiLeaks releases.
I assume that they publish most of leaked documents where the sources can be verified.
I'm somewhat amused of these anti-american accusations that pretty much everyone who criticizes the US government in form or another is subjected to on internet forums. Wasn't it recent US president who was so eager to make it clear for everyone that "You are either with us or against us"? Seems like many people in US have taken that advice to their hearts.
In recent news from the same front the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says WikiLeaks should be officially designated as a terrorist organization.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html
If this goes through, whatever you do, please don't preach to the rest of the world about freedom.
So better get busy building your private roads and buying a right to use roads owned by someone else. And while at it you probably also have to pay for healthcare, some sort of school to get your children educated and buy protection from mercenary police or army to defend yourself. Ofcourse if you're out of money then you are pretty much out of luck too. No healthcare, no protection for your legal rights, no possibility to move, no school for your chilren. Have you ever thought why such capitalist state of your dreams doesn't exist? Maybe, because such slavery is deemed to fail sooner or later.
To me it seems that there are lots of people in the US whose idea of capitalism and socialism is very contrasted, while any realistically working state has to be somewhere in between the two extremes. Thinking of it, such polarized views must be a result of cold-war propaganda. When you say socialism, look at your own state built infrastuctures or think places like Scandinavian countries. Their policy has been lot more socialistic than for example China's. In China money matters even more than it does in the US and you're hard pressed to find any social support networks, free education or healthcare. Socialism is only a word facade for Chinese goverment.
That's bullshit. Someone who blows up teenagers is a terrorist. Doesn't matter if they are on my side or your side.
If that's your opinion, then every war is full of terrorists on both sides. People generally don't define the word terrorist that way, which is when "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" applies. It doesn't make much difference if one bombs those teenagers from an airplane flying at 20kft or right from the street. War is done by means available and all sides use tactics they deem effective.
Putting definitions aside I kind of agree with you. Most wars not justifiable and only breed more violence. What I wanted to alleviate though is that every side involved in a conflict wants to take the moral high ground and tries to justify their actions by greater good.