here, have a free clue. Do you *have* to be an ass about expressing a different opinion? I don't care if they aren't compulsory. Having too many unnecessary options makes a language sloppy and furthermore, promotes sloppy programming.
That said, did you enjoy your little "I am superior" posting? Hope so.
This cannot mean good things for Perl. Look at all of those operators!!!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pretty onerous to have a huge chart of possible operators for a language? I'd quite prefer simplifying over adding multiple combinations of ways to doing things. That code is gonna be NASTY.
All the more reason for me (IMO) to avoid Perl like the plague.
Well, he was probably being AC because he was already trying to be insulting, that's sorta what rubbed me wrong anyway. You can always be a big man hiding behind an AC.
I am really sick of people spewing out insults when someone disagrees with them. I used to be that way too, I admit it, and I just don't like it! A friend of mine has a quote that says it all:
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert
For all I know, I may process some of our discussion over time and agree more with you down the road! Also, you and I were able to converse without resorting to insults.:) I use the journals a lot and we're all pretty sick of AC trolls, so I guess I'm a little biased.
I think that it's vital for ALL information to be shared, completely and openly. Ok, so you're most likely fully in the RMS philosophical camp and I guess what I have to say is thank you for being a balance because you guys offset the extreme other side, (ie Microsoft, etc.) and I (being in the middle) benefit from your fighting.
I still say that being able to burn a song to CD as many times as I want for as long as I want is not a restriction. The biggest restriction is that I cannot send a song I bought to my friends, but I can burn them a CD of those songs to listen to whenever they want, therefore, information is free. I have a slight moral issue with that, however, because I think my friends should buy their own damn music.
I disagree with you, but now I understand your viewpoint better. I have other things I consider more important and therefore, I can't be quite as zealous as you about this issue. I will become more zealous when it I consider it a problem, but for now, I really don't.
I understand that companies and big-wigs do immoral things; however, I also accept that that is the way of the world and that humankind will always do that. It doesn't mean that me being able to legally buy $0.99 songs and do what I wish with them will affect that one way or the other.
1) Do you think it's fair to share music created by someone with everyone without their permission?
2) Do you think that the market would accept a case where it got to the point that you're locked into purchasing appliance from BIGCO? Isn't that why Linux/BSD are doing so well because even Microsoft can't make EVERYONE use their OS?
The reason why people, informed people at least, are buying from Apple is because their current policy is acceptable and very unlimiting unless you're a pirate. If their policy changed for the worse or if Microsoft got their way and took the market share, I would no longer buy it.
I think there's a point where the market finds conditions acceptable and where those in the market do not have to take an altruistic, idealistic stance *in case* something bad will happen. However, there is a point where a fight is in order, ala Microsoft.
Yeah, I understand some people have that view (by best friend for example, and we've had LONG arguments about it), but I'm not that extreme. Especially in this case with Apple. Apple shines compared to Microsoft in this topic.
First, I wasn't particularly addressing the "finally he won" argument--except that perhaps he should have won for the first two as well--I think that's a reasonable hope for what he created. The movies were not slouches.
I was more sorta cringing and reacting to your leap of logic that stated Lucas should have won. I simply cannot agree to that because I don't see the same quality in the end result of Star Wars that I saw in the three LOTR movies. Maybe innovation and nifty characters, but not overall quality (IMO!). Perhaps this year, scope along with (as I stated in my post) quality does. If the scope was huge, but the movies all sucked and were easily pegged in their suckiness, I would be right with you. I do need to retract my negative statement about Star Wars 5 (Empire). That was pretty damn good. Lucas didn't direct it.
[armchair movie expert mode] What comes through, for me, as a director's contributions are the style, pacing (yes, editors too, I know), believability, overall acting quality (director is deciding what makes it to the film), final dialogue, and tone of the movie. Multiply all this work he did as competently as the other directors by what he was tackling and I think it should be a factor. He was a better director this year, not only for his last movie, but for everything he did leading up to it in this one massive project--it's a unique position he's in. [/armchair movie expert mode]
I think, especially after watching the special features, that you can see how Jackson's amazing overseeing of the whole production should have been rewarded--the man was supervising 3 movies in various stages of production and produced amazing results. Yes, Coppola did an excellent job as did Clint Eastwood. Those movies were moving and cohesive, but the LOTR had the edge because of the undeniability of the quality and the scope.
I think we won't see eye to eye on the Star Wars thing, so I'm willing to just agree to disagree. I had written more negative views on Star Wars, but got rid of them because it's pointless. I think I see what you're getting at and I haven't addressed it well, but I was choking more at the Lucas comment than what you were asking about. Sorry about that.
The only problem is that Star Wars (1/2/4/5/6) sucks. (Talk about burning karma). The overall acting in the first one was crap (except for Harrison Ford and Alex Guinness)--"Aunt Beruuuuuuuuuu" ugh. It was very simplistic, childish story, and his dialogue writing was atrocious. The only reason it was popular, in my estimation, is that we were all young then and didn't see how much it sucked and were wowed by the special effects and nifty characters. The movie as a whole is nearly unwatchable to me now.
At least LOTR had good acting all around, the special effects were not the reason for making the movie have a "wow" factor, and the story was compelling and heavy. A massive undertaking to balance the tremendously massive books with the visual medium and it frankly blows away anything Lucas could imagine trying.
Lucas was simply in the right place at the right time. He has proven that with his subsequent efforts. "Oh, this planet is rough and coarse, not like your skin which is smoothe and soft." BARF. I recognize he spawned a whole industry, but the quality of the Star Wars movies do not merit a cookie, much less an Academy Award--contrary to all of the LOTR movies.
I think the scope of each LOTR movie and how well each movie turned out merited best movie. They were all three simply stunning in almost every aspect--naysayers arguments included.
I find that to be an extremely minor nuisance compared to the quality of the device. I had a Rio (not a karma) a couple years ago and decided never to buy one again--low quality device, poor sounding crap. Maybe the Karma is good, but it would have to be DAMN good to wash the nasty taste outta my mouth and outshine the iPod. If you knew me, you'd know I despise "image". This is purely a quality call for me.
But really, who listens to that many songs in their rotation? I burn three or four cd-rw's with 400 songs each and I am set.
Me. I REALLY REALLY love music. It is #2 next to breathing on my priority list. I never know what I'll want to listen to and CDs are major, hassling, inconvenient, bulky, old hat now after seeing the light. I can listen to anything in my collection, any time I want, wherever I want, whenever I want.
I'm not saying that's for everyone, but for a HUGE music fan, it's gotta say something. It's a matter of degrees of music obsession perhaps.
Good for you! However, I've got 4000 CD quality songs on my 4.1 x 2.4 x.62" iPod with tracking of my favorite songs, play counts, custom playlists without re-burning CDs. It works WAY better for my needs than your CD MP3 player, so $400 is not too much for all those functions. If you want to bring all your contacts with you and transfer files between sites using firewire or USB 2.0, there's even more reason.
It's always a favorite thing of anti-iPod folks to say that it's only a "personal radio", but you sound like my Dad bitching at me when I was 15 for liking that "new-fangled acid rock". A bit outta touch....
Had mine for 3 years now, no problems. It's all negative propaganda. Having it replaced for $50 is no biggie anyway and the benefits way outweigh this minor inconvenience.
Interesting commentary; however, how do you know that poor white people wouldn't invent blues or jazz? I figure it's more of a poverty thing than a race thing. It seems to me that there was a synergy between the poorer whites and poorer blacks to extend those art forms--even though the prominent artists were black, granted. If a "class" of white people were put in the same situations, perhaps similar cultural phenomenons would occur.... I could do without the rap one though.;) I find it hard to believe that white people, as humans, couldn't contribute culturally as well as other cultures.
Well, as your post somewhat acknowledges, it *would* be sorta goofy sounding for guys going around saying "Oh, he's hot and I love those shoes he's wearing." It's just funny, not something you think about doing with your buds when you're out! (Is this that metrosexual crap they're talking about all the time??? Being able to talk like a woman makes you more of a new age sensitive man?)
Besides, Tom Cruise is butt-ugly. Give me Orlando Bloom anyday...
Slashdot Mirror
here, have a free clue.
Do you *have* to be an ass about expressing a different opinion? I don't care if they aren't compulsory. Having too many unnecessary options makes a language sloppy and furthermore, promotes sloppy programming.
That said, did you enjoy your little "I am superior" posting? Hope so.
Exactly what I was thinking. (whether you were being facetious or not!) :)
This cannot mean good things for Perl. Look at all of those operators!!!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pretty onerous to have a huge chart of possible operators for a language? I'd quite prefer simplifying over adding multiple combinations of ways to doing things. That code is gonna be NASTY.
All the more reason for me (IMO) to avoid Perl like the plague.
I am really sick of people spewing out insults when someone disagrees with them. I used to be that way too, I admit it, and I just don't like it! A friend of mine has a quote that says it all:
For all I know, I may process some of our discussion over time and agree more with you down the road! Also, you and I were able to converse without resorting to insults.
Ugh. Not all at once. Over time. Doesn't anyone make regular backups of their data?
:) I'm a slob otherwise unfortunately.
If you did get to know me you'd know I'm the opposite of anal except when it comes to my music!
If you post logged in I'll answer. Otherwise, don't bother.
I think that it's vital for ALL information to be shared, completely and openly.
Ok, so you're most likely fully in the RMS philosophical camp and I guess what I have to say is thank you for being a balance because you guys offset the extreme other side, (ie Microsoft, etc.) and I (being in the middle) benefit from your fighting.
I still say that being able to burn a song to CD as many times as I want for as long as I want is not a restriction. The biggest restriction is that I cannot send a song I bought to my friends, but I can burn them a CD of those songs to listen to whenever they want, therefore, information is free. I have a slight moral issue with that, however, because I think my friends should buy their own damn music.
I disagree with you, but now I understand your viewpoint better. I have other things I consider more important and therefore, I can't be quite as zealous as you about this issue. I will become more zealous when it I consider it a problem, but for now, I really don't.
I understand that companies and big-wigs do immoral things; however, I also accept that that is the way of the world and that humankind will always do that. It doesn't mean that me being able to legally buy $0.99 songs and do what I wish with them will affect that one way or the other.
Ok, a couple questions.
1) Do you think it's fair to share music created by someone with everyone without their permission?
2) Do you think that the market would accept a case where it got to the point that you're locked into purchasing appliance from BIGCO? Isn't that why Linux/BSD are doing so well because even Microsoft can't make EVERYONE use their OS?
The reason why people, informed people at least, are buying from Apple is because their current policy is acceptable and very unlimiting unless you're a pirate. If their policy changed for the worse or if Microsoft got their way and took the market share, I would no longer buy it.
I think there's a point where the market finds conditions acceptable and where those in the market do not have to take an altruistic, idealistic stance *in case* something bad will happen. However, there is a point where a fight is in order, ala Microsoft.
Interesting discussion!
Yeah, I understand some people have that view (by best friend for example, and we've had LONG arguments about it), but I'm not that extreme. Especially in this case with Apple. Apple shines compared to Microsoft in this topic.
You may have not been doing this for malicious reasons, but you're statement is inaccurate! :)
According to Apple's site you can write songs an unlimited amount of times. You can only write a specific PLAYLISTS X amount of times. I think it's 5.
I have burned songs to CDs quite a few times and never had a problem. I've made at least 20 backups of my music collection, including purchased AACs.
iTunes has a very fair and very liberal usage policy IMO.
First, I wasn't particularly addressing the "finally he won" argument--except that perhaps he should have won for the first two as well--I think that's a reasonable hope for what he created. The movies were not slouches.
:)
I was more sorta cringing and reacting to your leap of logic that stated Lucas should have won. I simply cannot agree to that because I don't see the same quality in the end result of Star Wars that I saw in the three LOTR movies. Maybe innovation and nifty characters, but not overall quality (IMO!). Perhaps this year, scope along with (as I stated in my post) quality does. If the scope was huge, but the movies all sucked and were easily pegged in their suckiness, I would be right with you. I do need to retract my negative statement about Star Wars 5 (Empire). That was pretty damn good. Lucas didn't direct it.
[armchair movie expert mode]
What comes through, for me, as a director's contributions are the style, pacing (yes, editors too, I know), believability, overall acting quality (director is deciding what makes it to the film), final dialogue, and tone of the movie. Multiply all this work he did as competently as the other directors by what he was tackling and I think it should be a factor. He was a better director this year, not only for his last movie, but for everything he did leading up to it in this one massive project--it's a unique position he's in.
[/armchair movie expert mode]
I think, especially after watching the special features, that you can see how Jackson's amazing overseeing of the whole production should have been rewarded--the man was supervising 3 movies in various stages of production and produced amazing results. Yes, Coppola did an excellent job as did Clint Eastwood. Those movies were moving and cohesive, but the LOTR had the edge because of the undeniability of the quality and the scope.
I think we won't see eye to eye on the Star Wars thing, so I'm willing to just agree to disagree. I had written more negative views on Star Wars, but got rid of them because it's pointless. I think I see what you're getting at and I haven't addressed it well, but I was choking more at the Lucas comment than what you were asking about. Sorry about that.
Glad to see you're feeling better!
The only problem is that Star Wars (1/2/4/5/6) sucks. (Talk about burning karma). The overall acting in the first one was crap (except for Harrison Ford and Alex Guinness)--"Aunt Beruuuuuuuuuu" ugh. It was very simplistic, childish story, and his dialogue writing was atrocious. The only reason it was popular, in my estimation, is that we were all young then and didn't see how much it sucked and were wowed by the special effects and nifty characters. The movie as a whole is nearly unwatchable to me now.
At least LOTR had good acting all around, the special effects were not the reason for making the movie have a "wow" factor, and the story was compelling and heavy. A massive undertaking to balance the tremendously massive books with the visual medium and it frankly blows away anything Lucas could imagine trying.
Lucas was simply in the right place at the right time. He has proven that with his subsequent efforts. "Oh, this planet is rough and coarse, not like your skin which is smoothe and soft." BARF. I recognize he spawned a whole industry, but the quality of the Star Wars movies do not merit a cookie, much less an Academy Award--contrary to all of the LOTR movies.
I think the scope of each LOTR movie and how well each movie turned out merited best movie. They were all three simply stunning in almost every aspect--naysayers arguments included.
I find that to be an extremely minor nuisance compared to the quality of the device. I had a Rio (not a karma) a couple years ago and decided never to buy one again--low quality device, poor sounding crap. Maybe the Karma is good, but it would have to be DAMN good to wash the nasty taste outta my mouth and outshine the iPod. If you knew me, you'd know I despise "image". This is purely a quality call for me.
But really, who listens to that many songs in their rotation? I burn three or four cd-rw's with 400 songs each and I am set.
Me. I REALLY REALLY love music. It is #2 next to breathing on my priority list. I never know what I'll want to listen to and CDs are major, hassling, inconvenient, bulky, old hat now after seeing the light. I can listen to anything in my collection, any time I want, wherever I want, whenever I want.
I'm not saying that's for everyone, but for a HUGE music fan, it's gotta say something. It's a matter of degrees of music obsession perhaps.
Good for you! However, I've got 4000 CD quality songs on my 4.1 x 2.4 x .62" iPod with tracking of my favorite songs, play counts, custom playlists without re-burning CDs. It works WAY better for my needs than your CD MP3 player, so $400 is not too much for all those functions. If you want to bring all your contacts with you and transfer files between sites using firewire or USB 2.0, there's even more reason.
It's always a favorite thing of anti-iPod folks to say that it's only a "personal radio", but you sound like my Dad bitching at me when I was 15 for liking that "new-fangled acid rock". A bit outta touch....
Had mine for 3 years now, no problems. It's all negative propaganda. Having it replaced for $50 is no biggie anyway and the benefits way outweigh this minor inconvenience.
Do you have TMobile service where you're at? I'm VERY happy with their service and they're NOT Verizon or Cingular.
Hey man, chill. I was just joking.
Heh, that reminds me of what I think of Anonymous Cowards...they're like hermaphrodites--they're dicks and pussies at the same time! :)
Interesting commentary; however, how do you know that poor white people wouldn't invent blues or jazz? I figure it's more of a poverty thing than a race thing. It seems to me that there was a synergy between the poorer whites and poorer blacks to extend those art forms--even though the prominent artists were black, granted. If a "class" of white people were put in the same situations, perhaps similar cultural phenomenons would occur.... I could do without the rap one though. ;) I find it hard to believe that white people, as humans, couldn't contribute culturally as well as other cultures.
He's also an idiot. Man, if I had Nicole Kidman in my bed.... whew.
No, I don't think he is, but Mountain Dew is radioactive Moose piss, so it's special.
Well, as your post somewhat acknowledges, it *would* be sorta goofy sounding for guys going around saying "Oh, he's hot and I love those shoes he's wearing." It's just funny, not something you think about doing with your buds when you're out! (Is this that metrosexual crap they're talking about all the time??? Being able to talk like a woman makes you more of a new age sensitive man?)
Besides, Tom Cruise is butt-ugly. Give me Orlando Bloom anyday...
:) Don't sweat it, I knew what you meant, I was just giving you a hard time....
You find her cousin hot looking and he's a guy? Don't you have some soul-searching to do??? :)