sorry, it's too late. The very fact that you responded to my post puts you in the secret RealTruth(tm) database. A representative from Area51/Microsoft will be ringing your doorbell shortly. If you want to live, you'll do as he tells you...
Your mention of the X-Files reminds me of an episode in which the intrepid FBI agents found a bunch of cloned humans floating in big fishtanks in some underground secret lab at DARPA - the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Having formerly been a DARPA contractor, I thought their interpretation of DARPA was hilarious. Instead of the well-lit hallways populated with contractors jockeying for project funds and project manager doors festooned with Dilbert cartoons and spiffy project logos printed with color laser printers, the X-Files version of DARPA was dark and sinister, with M-16-toting security guards (rather than the more passive and more effective security measures DARPA actually uses) and humorless dark-suit types everywhere.
It makes me think of that strange fuzzy line between pure fantasy, well-researched "believable" fiction, and mundane truth. So much of our entertainment these days is meticulously researched and realistically rendered on screen - witness "Saving Private Ryan" and "Blackhawk Down", but with most pseudo-realistic entertainment, it's very difficult to know whether the b.s. factor is small, medium, or large.
No wonder so many people believe the Earth is flat, and there was no moon landing.
They keep it buried deep in their site, but Apple does have some new certification programs:
comes down to story, not writing
on
Review: Showtime
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I just saw Showtime yesterday, and I enjoyed it for what it was: a matinee movie devoid of any real meaning. It took easy shots at reality TV and cop movies, but then slid back into standard Hollywood fare when there were no more shots to take.
The screenplay followed the plan of the movie - at least, the plan as envisioned by the studio. Do you honestly think that the studio said, "Hmm.. we need to make a movie that will use satire and comedy to blow the doors on the wicked exploitation and stupidity of cop movies and reality TV?"
Of course not - just like most comedy, they took some of the more ludicrous aspects of our society and poked fun at them, while advancing a story built around two likeable characters.
That's it. No message. Jon, you went in with the expectation that the movie would be something deeper, but I have to scratch my head - what in the previews or in your previous experience with Hollywood movies made you think you'd be seeing a ringing expose of The Truth?
a recent 5-year study by scientists and researchers revealed that many people are bad drivers, and that a shocking percentage of people read books while driving.
This conclusion brings to mind the results of earlier studies that confirmed the following:
1) there are many people who get to the front of a long line at McDonald's and are still unable to decide what they want to eat.
2) many people, when given a choice between listening to Tiny Tim and Blues Traveller will in fact choose Tiny Tim.
3) a large portion of the population believes that Elvis is still alive in a bunker outside Las Vegas, and that he is in fact controlling world politics at the behest of the Area 51 aliens.
Sometimes, there's just no accounting for people. Bash them over the head with common sense, and they'll still go the other way.
don't care about "good journalism/writing". In fact, most of us don't care about most of what goes on in the world. Hell, most of us don't even know that there *IS* a world outside the United States, except when we go somewhere to kick some ass.
This new averaged, filtered, genericized "news" is exactly the kind of crap suited to a society that spawned "Judge Judy" and "A Current Affair". Sure, it's a nice piece of technical wizardry, but all things clever are not useful or worthwhile.
The Industry Standard died, Fast Company has dwindled down from biblical thickness to the size of a pamphlet, and Business 2.0, along with many other business mags, are filling their pages with exhumations from the morgue.
Take a look at all of the business mags, and you'll see that they're desperate to put anything in the pages, anything that will get readers and fill space.
All I was doing is trying to provoke discussion about which games people liked best. As you know, gamers like nothing better than to pump up their favorite games and disparage the ones they don't like. All in good fun.;-)
you and I must be two of the sum total of 147 people who ever played AfterSmash! as we used to call it. Man, what a piece of work that game was - arcane, but a lot of fun.
I'm amazed that someone actually combined RQ and Aftermath! but my guess is it came out a lot better than Arduin or GammaWorld or any of the other crossover games that have plagued us for an eternity.
Let the flames begin, but IMHO, the best RPG ever, *hands down* is Runequest.
Gygax has recently moved away from the "power gaming" that dominates D&D, but in Runequest, it's always been impossible to succumb to gaming dominated solely by statistics and probabilities.
Stafford, Perrin, et. al. created a game that not only utilized a straightforward skills-based system, but also made a marvellously-detailed and lifelike world - Glorantha.
I say "lifelike" because it had internal contradictions. There were conflicting sources of information. There was never any one, overarching "true history" of Gloranth, only snippets you'd find here and there. Plus, the world was dominated by the truly epic struggle between the Lighbringers and the Lunar Empire - a backdrop that gave life to countless adventure opportunities.
The game system was fantastic, because you could get to be a real badass and still you had to pay attention to combat. In D&D, as a 10th level character, a 1st level monster presents no threat to you. Not even remotely. But in Runequest, there's always the chance that that nasty, grimy little broo can take down your kick-ass Rune Lord (as poor Khorat the Barbarian found out lo those many years ago - may Urox guard his soul).
Anyway, although RQ is out of print (the sortid history of its demise is really too painful to recount), Glorantha is alive and well, and there's even a new game that allows players to explore Glorantha (haven't played it - I'm still too wedded to my RQIII materials).
TurboGopher VR actually came out around the time of Mozilla, if I recall properly. It was quite slick, but ultimately not all that useful. I think much of what they learned in implementing TG VR went into the development of HotSauce, which I thought was (like OpenDoc and Cyberdog) essentially ahead of its time.
Obviously consolidation of the media has been going on for some time. This article is interesting because it was published in 1968, before the rise of cable networks, before Fox, before Sony got into entertainment distribution, before NBC/GE, before ABC/Disney.
Interestingly, the consolidation hasn't thwarted competition. It has, however, thwarted disemmination of information from a variety of sources - just as Commissioner Johnson warned back in 1968.
Re:Falsifying History - a fact check
on
Collateral Damage
·
· Score: 2
1) "nothing in that movie really happened that way" - Tell us how it actually went down. You were obviously either there or have access to carefully researched information, right? The author of Black Hawk Down spent thousands of hours researching his book, most of which was originally serialized in the Philadelphia Enquirer.
2) "paid for by the US Army" - Interesting theory, but false. The US Army cooperated with Ridley Scott in filming the movie, but they don't bankroll the studios.
3) "The US troops committed many war crimes in that country" - A sensational claim, but where are your facts?. I was in Somalia, from December, 1992 and March, 1993 with the 10th Mountain Division. The only war crimes I saw were the butchered bodies of dozens of people slaughtered by the clansmen of Omar Jess, left to rot half-buried outside of Kismayo.
4) "pullback triggered Rwanda genocides". - This is totally outside the spectrum of discussion about Somalia, but think about what you write. The pullback of American forces somehow compelled hundreds of thousands of Rwandans to slaughter each other? No, the ethnic hatred in Rwanda led to the slaughter. Your explanation is even more absurd than saying that because Germany was humiliated in World War One, it was the fault of the Allies that Hitler killed millions of innocents.
5) "US crimes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and their widespread disregard of the natural environment... feeding ground and root cause for terrorism against the US." - I agree with you that the United States has not always played fair, particularly with Central America and East Asia. But I would argue that the reason the US is a target for frustration and hate is not so much that it has committed crimes (because on balance, many people around the world, in spite of your view, see that the United States has done many good things), but that the US is the sole dominant power economically, culturally, and militarily.
Being that powerful makes the US a target - plain and simple. Interestingly, the very demand for political, economic, and cultural freedom that the US has helped to generate is now creating such a strong backlash.
Do you really think that Osama bin Laden is primarily motivated by a desire to punish the United States for its behavior in Guatemala, or for its immense appetite for fossil fuels (which led to the staggering wealth of the Saud family and thereby bin Laden's own family)? No, he's motivated by a very narrow, fanatical view of Islam, and by a lust for power. He isn't being inclusive. He doesn't want a happier world for you and me. He's not seeking balance. He wants a world dominated by his militant view of Islam.
Is the United States to blame for this man? Certainly the desire of many people around the world to find some sort of spiritual clarity in a time of overwhelming materialsm can be traced back to US hegemony.
But before we simplify it down to "the US brought this on itself," and start spreading around a "rest of the world vs. the US" mentality, imagine for a moment some of the other options.
The UN is not an effective world government yet, and likely won't be for some time to come. Given that power abhors a vaccum, who would you have lead the world?
Would it be Russia? China? Perhaps the UK? France? Italy? South Africa? Chile? Brazil? Which nations would advocate freedom of speech and religion? Which would rebuild Europe and Japan after fighting to save the world from fascism? Which would defend the rest of the world from an ideology antithetical to individual freedom?
See, the great thing is, we could find lots of things to fault any one of these nations on. Give them immense power and see how well they wield it. In truth, no matter what nation is dominant, it will always be a handy scapegoat. Any number of ills can be easily heaped upon them.
After all, it's a lot easier to blame someone else than it is to look in the mirror.
It sounds like mere semantics, but the difference between a manager ("One who handles, controls, or directs") versus a leader ("one that leads or guides") is the difference between viewing employees as "assets" or viewing them as human beings.
First, realize that leadership is a discipline in itself. It can be taught, but the underlying capacity to lead is something some people have and others just don't. Most companies have *zero* leadership training. Those organizations that do have serious leadership training tend to prosper - take a look at how IBM and GE train their people to see what I mean.
Second, remember that the best leaders always lead by example. People don't listen to what you say as much as they watch what you do. If you're honest and direct with them, they'll usually reply in kind.
Third, remember that leaders build teams. If you can create a team that works together, where everyone feels involved and informed, you'll find your task much easier.
Leading well is difficult, and nobody will ever pat you on the back and say "Gee, you're a great leader!" but the effort you put into being a leader as opposed to just a manager will pay great dividends.
One more thing - don't try to be someone you're not. Ghandi was a great leader, and so was Patton, but obviously they had very different styles.
But if I were working in Corporate America, and the good people in my IT department were following Microsoft's firm guidance (notice they've made it VERY difficult for enterprise users to stay with NT 4.0?), I might not have any choice in the matter.
I've had it happen to me before.
I didn't say anything at all about having the government force Microsoft to stop upgrading their OS. In fact, I think that Microsoft's continued reliance on "this one is even bigger and better than the one before" OS rollouts is ultimately good for distributors of other OSes (because they can attract disgruntled MS users).
I didn't say anything about Linux kernel upgrades, either.
Exactly! Isn't it weird that the whole world just seems to take it in stride that every couple of years they're going to have to go through this painful upgrade process?
It's sort of funny to me that Mac die-hards are complaining about the difficulties associated with moving to OS X, when the last serious OS upgrade we've had to deal with was OS 7, back at circa 1994.
I'd hate to be a poor beleagured Windows user, having to go through major OS changes every time I finally get used to working with the previous OS.
I guess it's job insurance for MS tech support folks.
"they have no chance in the server or production world." - I'll take this not as a flame, but as a comment born of ignorance.
You realize that Apple has this new OS called OS X, right? It's built around the mach kernel and BSD. It's fast, it's stable, and you can compile tons of *NIX goodies to run on it. You can also deploy WebObjects apps, and the GUI admin tools make things easier for those who are new to operating a server. It might not rule the server world, but OS X Server has been well reviewed, and will certainly steal back marketshare in K-12, university, and creative environments where NT and its derivatives had made inroads.
The Mac is now finally a serious Java development platform. You can use all manner of GNU tools on the Mac.
As for production, in the worlds of video production, audio production, web production, and print production, the Mac has always been very strong. With OS X, Apple will be able to regain a firm lead in these areas.
As more and more apps are ported to OS X, and as more brand-new Cocoa apps are written, the platform will become even more attractive to creative industries. Dual-processor machines running OS X are a godsend to people using memory-intensive apps like Illustrator and Final Cut Pro.
Macs have always been labeled as "cute", particularly after the release of the initial iMac four years ago. But Apple has changed its ways to a large degree. Sure, they make eye-catching products that are easy to use, but they're also now transitioning to a truly powerful OS that plays very well with UNIX, Linux, and even Windows.
Good point. Godzilla picks up the train and tries to smack Mothra with it.. all those poor passengers!
But seriously, this really reminds me of my personal favorite Goliath, SBC. They were so busy squashing the upstart DSL providers that they just didn't seem to give a crap about customers.
The only thing that makes me nervous about these things is that essentially your eyeball is just a few millimeters from a bright light source. Has anyone seen any research information about the long-term effects of close-proximity displays? I've got a gut feeling that it just can't be good for your eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, it's too late. The very fact that you responded to my post puts you in the secret RealTruth(tm) database. A representative from Area51/Microsoft will be ringing your doorbell shortly. If you want to live, you'll do as he tells you...
Having formerly been a DARPA contractor, I thought their interpretation of DARPA was hilarious. Instead of the well-lit hallways populated with contractors jockeying for project funds and project manager doors festooned with Dilbert cartoons and spiffy project logos printed with color laser printers, the X-Files version of DARPA was dark and sinister, with M-16-toting security guards (rather than the more passive and more effective security measures DARPA actually uses) and humorless dark-suit types everywhere.
It makes me think of that strange fuzzy line between pure fantasy, well-researched "believable" fiction, and mundane truth. So much of our entertainment these days is meticulously researched and realistically rendered on screen - witness "Saving Private Ryan" and "Blackhawk Down", but with most pseudo-realistic entertainment, it's very difficult to know whether the b.s. factor is small, medium, or large.
No wonder so many people believe the Earth is flat, and there was no moon landing.
The screenplay followed the plan of the movie - at least, the plan as envisioned by the studio. Do you honestly think that the studio said, "Hmm.. we need to make a movie that will use satire and comedy to blow the doors on the wicked exploitation and stupidity of cop movies and reality TV?"
Of course not - just like most comedy, they took some of the more ludicrous aspects of our society and poked fun at them, while advancing a story built around two likeable characters.
That's it. No message. Jon, you went in with the expectation that the movie would be something deeper, but I have to scratch my head - what in the previews or in your previous experience with Hollywood movies made you think you'd be seeing a ringing expose of The Truth?
This conclusion brings to mind the results of earlier studies that confirmed the following:
1) there are many people who get to the front of a long line at McDonald's and are still unable to decide what they want to eat.
2) many people, when given a choice between listening to Tiny Tim and Blues Traveller will in fact choose Tiny Tim.
3) a large portion of the population believes that Elvis is still alive in a bunker outside Las Vegas, and that he is in fact controlling world politics at the behest of the Area 51 aliens.
Sometimes, there's just no accounting for people. Bash them over the head with common sense, and they'll still go the other way.
This new averaged, filtered, genericized "news" is exactly the kind of crap suited to a society that spawned "Judge Judy" and "A Current Affair". Sure, it's a nice piece of technical wizardry, but all things clever are not useful or worthwhile.
Take a look at all of the business mags, and you'll see that they're desperate to put anything in the pages, anything that will get readers and fill space.
I'm amazed that someone actually combined RQ and Aftermath! but my guess is it came out a lot better than Arduin or GammaWorld or any of the other crossover games that have plagued us for an eternity.
Gygax has recently moved away from the "power gaming" that dominates D&D, but in Runequest, it's always been impossible to succumb to gaming dominated solely by statistics and probabilities.
Stafford, Perrin, et. al. created a game that not only utilized a straightforward skills-based system, but also made a marvellously-detailed and lifelike world - Glorantha.
I say "lifelike" because it had internal contradictions. There were conflicting sources of information. There was never any one, overarching "true history" of Gloranth, only snippets you'd find here and there. Plus, the world was dominated by the truly epic struggle between the Lighbringers and the Lunar Empire - a backdrop that gave life to countless adventure opportunities.
The game system was fantastic, because you could get to be a real badass and still you had to pay attention to combat. In D&D, as a 10th level character, a 1st level monster presents no threat to you. Not even remotely. But in Runequest, there's always the chance that that nasty, grimy little broo can take down your kick-ass Rune Lord (as poor Khorat the Barbarian found out lo those many years ago - may Urox guard his soul).
Anyway, although RQ is out of print (the sortid history of its demise is really too painful to recount), Glorantha is alive and well, and there's even a new game that allows players to explore Glorantha (haven't played it - I'm still too wedded to my RQIII materials).
Find out more about Runequest here.
Find out more about Glorantha and the Hero Wars here.
Sorry, badly worded. I should have just said: "It thwarted disemination..."
My bad!
Interestingly, the consolidation hasn't thwarted competition. It has, however, thwarted disemmination of information from a variety of sources - just as Commissioner Johnson warned back in 1968.
2) "paid for by the US Army" - Interesting theory, but false. The US Army cooperated with Ridley Scott in filming the movie, but they don't bankroll the studios.
3) "The US troops committed many war crimes in that country" - A sensational claim, but where are your facts?. I was in Somalia, from December, 1992 and March, 1993 with the 10th Mountain Division. The only war crimes I saw were the butchered bodies of dozens of people slaughtered by the clansmen of Omar Jess, left to rot half-buried outside of Kismayo.
4) "pullback triggered Rwanda genocides". - This is totally outside the spectrum of discussion about Somalia, but think about what you write. The pullback of American forces somehow compelled hundreds of thousands of Rwandans to slaughter each other? No, the ethnic hatred in Rwanda led to the slaughter. Your explanation is even more absurd than saying that because Germany was humiliated in World War One, it was the fault of the Allies that Hitler killed millions of innocents.
5) "US crimes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and their widespread disregard of the natural environment... feeding ground and root cause for terrorism against the US." - I agree with you that the United States has not always played fair, particularly with Central America and East Asia. But I would argue that the reason the US is a target for frustration and hate is not so much that it has committed crimes (because on balance, many people around the world, in spite of your view, see that the United States has done many good things), but that the US is the sole dominant power economically, culturally, and militarily.
Being that powerful makes the US a target - plain and simple. Interestingly, the very demand for political, economic, and cultural freedom that the US has helped to generate is now creating such a strong backlash.
Do you really think that Osama bin Laden is primarily motivated by a desire to punish the United States for its behavior in Guatemala, or for its immense appetite for fossil fuels (which led to the staggering wealth of the Saud family and thereby bin Laden's own family)? No, he's motivated by a very narrow, fanatical view of Islam, and by a lust for power. He isn't being inclusive. He doesn't want a happier world for you and me. He's not seeking balance. He wants a world dominated by his militant view of Islam.
Is the United States to blame for this man? Certainly the desire of many people around the world to find some sort of spiritual clarity in a time of overwhelming materialsm can be traced back to US hegemony.
But before we simplify it down to "the US brought this on itself," and start spreading around a "rest of the world vs. the US" mentality, imagine for a moment some of the other options.
The UN is not an effective world government yet, and likely won't be for some time to come. Given that power abhors a vaccum, who would you have lead the world?
Would it be Russia? China? Perhaps the UK? France? Italy? South Africa? Chile? Brazil? Which nations would advocate freedom of speech and religion? Which would rebuild Europe and Japan after fighting to save the world from fascism? Which would defend the rest of the world from an ideology antithetical to individual freedom?
See, the great thing is, we could find lots of things to fault any one of these nations on. Give them immense power and see how well they wield it. In truth, no matter what nation is dominant, it will always be a handy scapegoat. Any number of ills can be easily heaped upon them.
After all, it's a lot easier to blame someone else than it is to look in the mirror.
First, realize that leadership is a discipline in itself. It can be taught, but the underlying capacity to lead is something some people have and others just don't. Most companies have *zero* leadership training. Those organizations that do have serious leadership training tend to prosper - take a look at how IBM and GE train their people to see what I mean.
Second, remember that the best leaders always lead by example. People don't listen to what you say as much as they watch what you do. If you're honest and direct with them, they'll usually reply in kind.
Third, remember that leaders build teams. If you can create a team that works together, where everyone feels involved and informed, you'll find your task much easier.
Leading well is difficult, and nobody will ever pat you on the back and say "Gee, you're a great leader!" but the effort you put into being a leader as opposed to just a manager will pay great dividends.
One more thing - don't try to be someone you're not. Ghandi was a great leader, and so was Patton, but obviously they had very different styles.
But if I were working in Corporate America, and the good people in my IT department were following Microsoft's firm guidance (notice they've made it VERY difficult for enterprise users to stay with NT 4.0?), I might not have any choice in the matter.
I've had it happen to me before.
I didn't say anything at all about having the government force Microsoft to stop upgrading their OS. In fact, I think that Microsoft's continued reliance on "this one is even bigger and better than the one before" OS rollouts is ultimately good for distributors of other OSes (because they can attract disgruntled MS users).
I didn't say anything about Linux kernel upgrades, either.
It's sort of funny to me that Mac die-hards are complaining about the difficulties associated with moving to OS X, when the last serious OS upgrade we've had to deal with was OS 7, back at circa 1994.
I'd hate to be a poor beleagured Windows user, having to go through major OS changes every time I finally get used to working with the previous OS.
I guess it's job insurance for MS tech support folks.
Hey, FUD is everywhere. If you think I'm spewing it, then give the good people some facts, rather than a simple cheap shot.
You realize that Apple has this new OS called OS X, right? It's built around the mach kernel and BSD. It's fast, it's stable, and you can compile tons of *NIX goodies to run on it. You can also deploy WebObjects apps, and the GUI admin tools make things easier for those who are new to operating a server. It might not rule the server world, but OS X Server has been well reviewed, and will certainly steal back marketshare in K-12, university, and creative environments where NT and its derivatives had made inroads.
The Mac is now finally a serious Java development platform. You can use all manner of GNU tools on the Mac. As for production, in the worlds of video production, audio production, web production, and print production, the Mac has always been very strong. With OS X, Apple will be able to regain a firm lead in these areas.
As more and more apps are ported to OS X, and as more brand-new Cocoa apps are written, the platform will become even more attractive to creative industries. Dual-processor machines running OS X are a godsend to people using memory-intensive apps like Illustrator and Final Cut Pro.
Macs have always been labeled as "cute", particularly after the release of the initial iMac four years ago. But Apple has changed its ways to a large degree. Sure, they make eye-catching products that are easy to use, but they're also now transitioning to a truly powerful OS that plays very well with UNIX, Linux, and even Windows.
But seriously, this really reminds me of my personal favorite Goliath, SBC. They were so busy squashing the upstart DSL providers that they just didn't seem to give a crap about customers.
Ultimately, the lawyers will win.
until he wins, and you have to worry about getting trampled.
Name one communist country where the vanguard of the proletariat didn't use its power to gain material advantages.
Just ask Trotsky.