Actually, I thought is was great that they didn't mention the trolls other than them just being there. Many people didn't see them at all until the second time around.:)
Are you counting the cave troll as a troll? I'd assumed you weren't, since you were trying to make the point they didn't get enough screen time. The cave troll definitely got screen time.
Re:You paid to see the ad, now pay to see the film
on
One DVD To Rule Them All
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What trolls are you talking about? The ones turned to stone?
1. They were in the film. 2. The non-stone trolls were in "The Hobbit", not FotR.
Granted, the fight scenes are there to sell the movie. If you've read the books, you'd realize Tolkien skipped the ork battle, instead he described it as a second hand accounting from Pippin/Merry.
Who make the wrong equation that People = Persons. People means group of Persons. In large groups, People are stupid on any given subject when compared to a person knowledgable in that subject. No reason to get upset.
Further, Linux doesn't want to be successful on the Desktop, PEOPLE want Linux to be successful on the Desktop. Think carefully about that.
Personally, I couldn't care less whether other Persons use Linux as a Desktop OS; I do use it and I'm happy with that.
You miss his point. He is correct, though he didn't quite state it as I would.
In Large Enough groups, People are stupid. This does not mean anything about Individual Persons. I prefer to think "People are Sheep", it gets the herd mentality in there.
The issue of age isn't the primary story here. Rather, the telling point is how Apple handled as well as Finlay's account of interfacing with the Darwin folks. Cutting off access without any attempt at communication? Making obvious code improvements painful to apply? Ditching a PROVEN contributor because an NDA can't be enforced?
All this paints Apple in a "we are dinosaurs" light. It certainly doesn't seem to me that they really "get" Open Source, rather they seem to view it as a marketing scheme or a way to get cheap code debugging.
From http://darwinfo.org/:
"Most importantly, the source to most (but not all) of Darwin is available."
Buh? How does partial source qualify as Open Source? I guess it's only "Mostly Open Source".
1. He's a young director. "He'll have other chances" seems to be the general thought amongst the Academy.
2. He's guaranteed to be up for 2 more years. I can't imagine the 2nd or 3rd film could fall off pace of Fellowship. Again, the Academy-style thinking is "He'll get his later".
I disagree. The Point of Delivery is where the law should be enforced.
Taking the order for beer is not illegal, actually delivering it is. Yet another example of where this Internet thing really doesn't break any new ground.
Encryption may take little effort, but it is still some effort. But in my mind, the A is for access, not effort. Encrypting information makes that information less available, meaning -A. Encrypting the info also has the effect of making it hard to censor that information, also a -A.
Once the information is decrypted, it's back to the normal state, +A for the info but it's again easier to censor that info, +A.
I grant that encryption allows information to bypass localized censorship to reach a global audience (for example, information from China to the world) but while making a larger audience one also makes for more opportunities for censorship. For my China example, getting the info out of the country does not mean the infomation will be generally available in China, incoming information is still censored. But now Korea can also censor, etc.
I think the orginal argument still stands, technology alone increases the ability to exchange information freely and by doing so also increasing the ability of those who would censor to deal with said information. Censorship is not limited to just preventing the information from being available, there are many more subtle ways to achieve the same end.
You're neglecting the cost in bandwidth to transmit all that spam. Multiply your situation by a couple million.
Remember that the next time your connection seems a little slow.
Good spam blockers don't just filter the email, it's already wasted bandwidth and resources at that point. Good spam blockers such as rblsmtpd from the qmail package drop the connection as soon as a black listed IP connects, with an error message for those sending legitimate mail.
For example, a black listed IP hitting my mail server sees:
"553 <see http://www.vh.org/rbl.html> Email not accepted from IP address:61.99.120.39"
SPAMMERS, who typically use FRAUDULENT Reply-to headers, will never see this error, while legitiment email senders will and will be able to plea for the email to be delivered.
I started out this way, only black listing networks that sent me SPAM. The problem was, the damn SPAMMERS seem to have a limitless list of open relays in Korea, etc.
I blocked Korea (using apnic) and my SPAM dropped to almost nil. Days of effort saved on my part.
It's not my responsibility to make sure Asian mail servers are not open relays, it is the USERS of those mail servers. The ISPs won't do anything until it hurts the bottom line.
Here's something to think about: consider copyright and the idea of copyright lifetime from a GPL perspective.
Suppose copyright was limited to the original 14 years for an author. That would mean that your typical GPL code would be public domain in less than 14 years, agreed? The 2.2 kernel would be public domain, for example, around 2014 or so.
Is this bad? I don't think so, if 14 year old code is still useful, it would be better to have it end up in the public domain for whomever to use however they wish. No need to limit to GPL at that point.
I disagree that blacklists just list open relays. I keep an internal blacklist instead of using an public list, it's purpose is to list IPs that we DON'T accept email from. Sending me an email is not a right, it is something I allow or disallow. My receipt of SPAM is enough reason to me to decide I don't need email from the offending party, be they a user or a 16 block of an ISP. Now, in my case, the blacklisted party would get a bounce (assuming they're not being FRAUDULANT and using an invalid Reply-To!) informing them that their email is not welcome and a link to a web form that would allow them to plea their case.
In the case of the original poster, being an open relay would get you on my list, assuming I got SPAM, and I'd probably only remove you if there was some reason I wanted to get email from you. If you want off only because you MIGHT email me, forget it.
I'm hoping the "threaten to sue" was a joke, but in today's America it wouldn't suprise me if someone tried. No one has a Right to connect to my email server and send a message unless *I* grant that Right.
Details like all the careful craftsman work, most of which you wouldn't be able to see onscreen. But having those sorts of details helped the ACTORS quite a bit. Many of the cast have commented on how much the sets seemed like real places instead of "just a set".
Now, your comment on the changes from the book is right on. They changed a lot and cut a lot. For those who don't think so, watch FotR and then read the book again. My question is this: why did you go see the movie? You know the story, you have all the characters in your head, why bother? Because you wanted to See it, Hear it and Feel it in a way the book couldn't do. And the movie certainly accomplished that, IMO.
I agree, vote with your wallet and let Lucas Inc. know you won't pay to see crap. At this time I'm boycotting Episode II (or hell, III). Lucas Inc. (I would like to believe George wasn't totally responsible for Episode I) clearly has become about marketing and targetting audiences than making a good film. I admit, I might change my mind after the movie is released, but Lucas Inc. is going to have to earn my money rather than count on me seeing it at least once.
Fellowship of the Rings shows how it should have been done, with careful attention to detail and a great respect for the books and the fans.
Episode I was all about selling Darth Maul action figures.
One can argue that none of it is really free, you have to have the following to access it:
1. A computer or similiar device
2. A connection of said device to the Internet
Sure, some people can head to their local libraries and such, but instead it's the library paying the cost or someone else eating it.
Now, all this to me means the Net is no danger of going completely commercial, as there will always be those with disposible income that have an itch to scratch.
All DNS does is translate human friendly names to IP addresses. If the root servers died tomorrow, hitting slashdot's IP address would still work.
Granted, you'd have a tough time finding the IP if the roots were really done, but the failure of DNS has nothing to do with how the "networks" talk to each other.
What you're really talking about is the unified domain name space, having most of the users of the Net being able to resolve names certainly does keep the Net moving.
However, the ICANN roots (and their name space) are not the only ones in town. There are currently several different groups of alternate Network Information Centers (NICs) such as OpenNIC. Using them is fairly trival for any admin; if enough of us start using them, ICANN no longer has power.
Individual users don't need to modify their DNS setups, they should be pointing to their ISP's name servers anyway; saves both bandwidth and lookups.
Ah, a little googling turned up a more robust quote, from the cache:
"As Tolkien, who died in 1973 in England at the age of 81,
wrote in 1953 to the Rev. Robert Murray, a Jesuit priest:
``The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious
and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously
in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out,
practically all references to anything like `religion,' to cults or
practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is
absorbed into the story and the symbolism.''"
Heh. According to a recent story in one of the local (Iowa) papers, Tolkien said in a letter to a Jesuit priest that LotR was definitely Catholic and religious in nature. That, of course, was the extent of the quote, I somehow seriously doubt the context truly implied that Tolkien considered all of Middle Earth Catholic.
The article did go on to note that Tolkien consciously choose to include no references to the religous beliefs of Middle Earth at all. There was also mention of notes in his original manuscript that supposedly supported the argument that Middle Earth is Christian based. The original manuscripts appear to be here.
Personally, I feel that the "beliefs" of Middle Earth encompass things that are far older than Christianity and found the whole article somewhat irritating.
Wireless to me is ready made for all those places that have been left out of the higher bandwidth game. No wiring, no messing with the phone company, just contract an agreement to stick an antenna on the local water tower and rent a closet at the local city building du jour.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I thought is was great that they didn't mention the trolls other than them just being there. Many people didn't see them at all until the second time around. :)
Are you counting the cave troll as a troll? I'd assumed you weren't, since you were trying to make the point they didn't get enough screen time. The cave troll definitely got screen time.
What trolls are you talking about? The ones turned to stone?
1. They were in the film.
2. The non-stone trolls were in "The Hobbit", not FotR.
Granted, the fight scenes are there to sell the movie. If you've read the books, you'd realize Tolkien skipped the ork battle, instead he described it as a second hand accounting from Pippin/Merry.
Avast ye dirty dog, Enya Rocks! To compare her to Celine Dion is just so wrong.
You do realize the video also features a lot of stuff from the film, right? Seems worth filling up the empty space on DVD to me.
Apple Sales Training Day
------------------------
Sales Guy: Hi, welcome to Apple, how can I help you?
Mac User: I haven't had a new Mac for a couple of years and I feel the need for a new machine. What's new these days?
Sales Guy: Well, our current crop of Macs have the ultimate MacOS, which has a Unix foundation giving a new meaning to the turn reliable...
Steve Jobs: *smack* NO You IDIOT!! You don't tell them, you show them how bright and shiny it is! Don't give them facts, give them eye candy. Observe!
Steve Jobs: Here, take a gander at this. *displays desktop*
Mac User: Ooooo. Shiny!
Hmm, I guess lemmings must choose when they go over the end of the cliff and therefore they must be happy about it.
It certainly wouldn't be the case that lemmings aren't aware there is a choice to NOT go over the cliff.
Who make the wrong equation that People = Persons. People means group of Persons. In large groups, People are stupid on any given subject when compared to a person knowledgable in that subject. No reason to get upset.
Further, Linux doesn't want to be successful on the Desktop, PEOPLE want Linux to be successful on the Desktop. Think carefully about that.
Personally, I couldn't care less whether other Persons use Linux as a Desktop OS; I do use it and I'm happy with that.
You miss his point. He is correct, though he didn't quite state it as I would.
In Large Enough groups, People are stupid. This does not mean anything about Individual Persons. I prefer to think "People are Sheep", it gets the herd mentality in there.
The issue of age isn't the primary story here. Rather, the telling point is how Apple handled as well as Finlay's account of interfacing with the Darwin folks. Cutting off access without any attempt at communication? Making obvious code improvements painful to apply? Ditching a PROVEN contributor because an NDA can't be enforced?
All this paints Apple in a "we are dinosaurs" light. It certainly doesn't seem to me that they really "get" Open Source, rather they seem to view it as a marketing scheme or a way to get cheap code debugging.
From http://darwinfo.org/:
"Most importantly, the source to most (but not all) of Darwin is available."
Buh? How does partial source qualify as Open Source? I guess it's only "Mostly Open Source".
It's quite simple why Peter didn't get the Oscar.
1. He's a young director. "He'll have other chances" seems to be the general thought amongst the Academy.
2. He's guaranteed to be up for 2 more years. I can't imagine the 2nd or 3rd film could fall off pace of Fellowship. Again, the Academy-style thinking is "He'll get his later".
I disagree. The Point of Delivery is where the law should be enforced.
Taking the order for beer is not illegal, actually delivering it is. Yet another example of where this Internet thing really doesn't break any new ground.
Ah, I see we disagree on what is meant by +/- A.
Encryption may take little effort, but it is still some effort. But in my mind, the A is for access, not effort. Encrypting information makes that information less available, meaning -A. Encrypting the info also has the effect of making it hard to censor that information, also a -A.
Once the information is decrypted, it's back to the normal state, +A for the info but it's again easier to censor that info, +A.
I grant that encryption allows information to bypass localized censorship to reach a global audience (for example, information from China to the world) but while making a larger audience one also makes for more opportunities for censorship. For my China example, getting the info out of the country does not mean the infomation will be generally available in China, incoming information is still censored. But now Korea can also censor, etc.
I think the orginal argument still stands, technology alone increases the ability to exchange information freely and by doing so also increasing the ability of those who would censor to deal with said information. Censorship is not limited to just preventing the information from being available, there are many more subtle ways to achieve the same end.
You're wrong and you actually reinforce his point.
Encryption makes information flow -A (more cumbersome, smaller audience, etc.) and hence makes censorship -A as well.
I grant your argument that censorship is always a step behind SOME people, but that doesn't apply for ALL people.
You're neglecting the cost in bandwidth to transmit all that spam. Multiply your situation by a couple million.
Remember that the next time your connection seems a little slow.
Good spam blockers don't just filter the email, it's already wasted bandwidth and resources at that point. Good spam blockers such as rblsmtpd from the qmail package drop the connection as soon as a black listed IP connects, with an error message for those sending legitimate mail.
For example, a black listed IP hitting my mail server sees:
"553 <see http://www.vh.org/rbl.html> Email not accepted from IP address:61.99.120.39"
SPAMMERS, who typically use FRAUDULENT Reply-to headers, will never see this error, while legitiment email senders will and will be able to plea for the email to be delivered.
I started out this way, only black listing networks that sent me SPAM. The problem was, the damn SPAMMERS seem to have a limitless list of open relays in Korea, etc.
I blocked Korea (using apnic) and my SPAM dropped to almost nil. Days of effort saved on my part.
It's not my responsibility to make sure Asian mail servers are not open relays, it is the USERS of those mail servers. The ISPs won't do anything until it hurts the bottom line.
Here's something to think about: consider copyright and the idea of copyright lifetime from a GPL perspective.
Suppose copyright was limited to the original 14 years for an author. That would mean that your typical GPL code would be public domain in less than 14 years, agreed? The 2.2 kernel would be public domain, for example, around 2014 or so.
Is this bad? I don't think so, if 14 year old code is still useful, it would be better to have it end up in the public domain for whomever to use however they wish. No need to limit to GPL at that point.
A lot of this would be moot with a restructuring of email in general.
Food for thought from the man behind qmail: IM2000
I disagree that blacklists just list open relays. I keep an internal blacklist instead of using an public list, it's purpose is to list IPs that we DON'T accept email from. Sending me an email is not a right, it is something I allow or disallow. My receipt of SPAM is enough reason to me to decide I don't need email from the offending party, be they a user or a 16 block of an ISP. Now, in my case, the blacklisted party would get a bounce (assuming they're not being FRAUDULANT and using an invalid Reply-To!) informing them that their email is not welcome and a link to a web form that would allow them to plea their case.
In the case of the original poster, being an open relay would get you on my list, assuming I got SPAM, and I'd probably only remove you if there was some reason I wanted to get email from you. If you want off only because you MIGHT email me, forget it.
I'm hoping the "threaten to sue" was a joke, but in today's America it wouldn't suprise me if someone tried. No one has a Right to connect to my email server and send a message unless *I* grant that Right.
Details like all the careful craftsman work, most of which you wouldn't be able to see onscreen. But having those sorts of details helped the ACTORS quite a bit. Many of the cast have commented on how much the sets seemed like real places instead of "just a set".
Now, your comment on the changes from the book is right on. They changed a lot and cut a lot. For those who don't think so, watch FotR and then read the book again. My question is this: why did you go see the movie? You know the story, you have all the characters in your head, why bother? Because you wanted to See it, Hear it and Feel it in a way the book couldn't do. And the movie certainly accomplished that, IMO.
I agree, vote with your wallet and let Lucas Inc. know you won't pay to see crap. At this time I'm boycotting Episode II (or hell, III). Lucas Inc. (I would like to believe George wasn't totally responsible for Episode I) clearly has become about marketing and targetting audiences than making a good film. I admit, I might change my mind after the movie is released, but Lucas Inc. is going to have to earn my money rather than count on me seeing it at least once.
Fellowship of the Rings shows how it should have been done, with careful attention to detail and a great respect for the books and the fans. Episode I was all about selling Darth Maul action figures.
Lucky you, you have clearly not glimsped into the murky depths that is Windows code.
But then, neither have I, for I am still somewhat sane.
MS would be the people in that glass house yonder.
One can argue that none of it is really free, you have to have the following to access it:
1. A computer or similiar device
2. A connection of said device to the Internet
Sure, some people can head to their local libraries and such, but instead it's the library paying the cost or someone else eating it.
Now, all this to me means the Net is no danger of going completely commercial, as there will always be those with disposible income that have an itch to scratch.
All DNS does is translate human friendly names to IP addresses. If the root servers died tomorrow, hitting slashdot's IP address would still work.
Granted, you'd have a tough time finding the IP if the roots were really done, but the failure of DNS has nothing to do with how the "networks" talk to each other.
What you're really talking about is the unified domain name space, having most of the users of the Net being able to resolve names certainly does keep the Net moving.
However, the ICANN roots (and their name space) are not the only ones in town. There are currently several different groups of alternate Network Information Centers (NICs) such as OpenNIC. Using them is fairly trival for any admin; if enough of us start using them, ICANN no longer has power.
Individual users don't need to modify their DNS setups, they should be pointing to their ISP's name servers anyway; saves both bandwidth and lookups.
"As Tolkien, who died in 1973 in England at the age of 81, wrote in 1953 to the Rev. Robert Murray, a Jesuit priest:
``The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.''"
Hmmm
Heh. According to a recent story in one of the local (Iowa) papers, Tolkien said in a letter to a Jesuit priest that LotR was definitely Catholic and religious in nature. That, of course, was the extent of the quote, I somehow seriously doubt the context truly implied that Tolkien considered all of Middle Earth Catholic.
The article did go on to note that Tolkien consciously choose to include no references to the religous beliefs of Middle Earth at all. There was also mention of notes in his original manuscript that supposedly supported the argument that Middle Earth is Christian based. The original manuscripts appear to be here.
Personally, I feel that the "beliefs" of Middle Earth encompass things that are far older than Christianity and found the whole article somewhat irritating.
Wireless to me is ready made for all those places that have been left out of the higher bandwidth game. No wiring, no messing with the phone company, just contract an agreement to stick an antenna on the local water tower and rent a closet at the local city building du jour.
Sit back and watch the subscribers sign up.