Great point, but you forgot not only don't websites adhere to the standards, but most browsers don't either.
One of the things I find most annoying is that you need border=0 on images to remove that ugly purple border (on IE and Netscape), and the W3C validator says it's not a valid option.
Only a harvard grad would put footnotes in a slashdot post! (Sorry, just jealous because I went to Apex Tech; nothing wrong with footnotes, but you got to admit it looks funny here.)
A good point. Though that the site was posted than taken down could be a bad sign. It could also be that a worker there approved it not knowing the story had been up before. I've never been to internet.com (until this story provoked me to), but calendar services has been on Yahoo and other sites before for more than a year now. To be honest I don't know that many people that jump up and down about a calendar service. It sounds like a boring story to me and I could see why someone might take it down. If I ran the site though, I probably would just leave it up, to avoid putting any doubt about our posting practices.
There are some good points here, even if his accusation is not well thought out, we should be thinking about this kind of thing every so often. With the low overhead of running a marginally decent news site, I don't think there will ever be a shortage of such sites, so I'm not too worried about net wide censorship or media control of just a few conglomerates just yet. True, the popular sites may one day all be sites that push their own affiliates and owned companies, but isn't one of the great things about the internet is that there are near limitless places to go for different takes on the same thing? You may have to do some hunting to find them, to find that unbiased site, but hopefully it will be out there. And it's not that finding such sites has to be hard. There are many unbiased portal sites which simply list any site of a certain type. Some are so open they end up getting filled with bad links of sites that aren't up too long.
Oh, also, yep that sounds like a much better way to put it. I'm not the most organized or clear writer, thanks for not biting my head off about it.:) Thanks for clearing it up a bit and adding some valuable insight to it as well.
Sometimes I wonder if even these unplanned 'defects' are really not unplanned. (Or did you mean unplanned by us). I think they may be planned in nature, only we haven't discovered the how this system of unplanned defects work. I don't think everything is planned, and I'm not going for something metaphysical here, but when something works so well and you don't understand it, it makes you wonder. Maybe a system similar to evolution is working in parrellel with evolution (or is just a part of it we haven't seen), which causes specific defects like these. Or maybe there is something like this discovered already? I'm no biologist.
I agree, except sometimes a smaller animal survives because it's small and can hide, not from another bigger animal necessarily, but from a thunderstorm, etc.
Smarter, faster, stronger isn't always better. Weaklings with sicle cell anemia survived malaria plagues, an 'error' that would be weeded out with genetic engineering.
While I agree we should use technology to improve ourselves as best we can, dispite social taboos there may be on genetic engineering, we should recognize that some seemingly harmful traits are beneficial in some circumstances. For example, it will be a long time yet until we know every consequence of a genetic disease such as Parkinsons. What if we remove this trait totally from all humanity and some previously unknown natural occurance kills off everyone without that trait? I'm not saying we have to keep it, but we should be prepared to replace it should something unforseen make it necessary to bring back. And replacing it means totally understanding it, not just sequencing the genes that cause it or knowing just enough to remove them.
Please don't take this as 'The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth', but the cycle of life is a complex system, it would be arrogant and I believe ultimatly stupid for us to tamper too much with it at our present level of technology.
Could this be the end of the internet?
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't really specific about the culture, but thanks for the info, I wasn't aware Aztec culture was that much alive in Mexico. Mostly, though, I admire that they have a culture at all, whether it's a mix or not.. a culture not heavy infulenced by corporations and adverteisment campaigns.. or maybe I'm wrong about that about Mexico, I don't really know. Speedy Gonzales wasn't really entering my mind, mostly I pictured some of the footage of national holiday celebrations and parades.
I'm always amazed at how many foriegners come to visit NYC given how much were supposdly hated overseas. I think we get laughed a lot, but I don't think we're hated by everyone. I think some foreign countries look at the US and say, "Hey, they're a big bad, stupid bully, if our people had a country that big with those resources, we'd be doing a better job". And then some of them probably wonder if their people would do a better job or about the same.
What was insulting about that? Oh the gringo part? I've heard it so much it has become kind of funny. Or at least I wouldn't take it that seriously if someone said 'Hey, gringo' to me. If they said 'Hey you fucking gringo', then I might, but a lot has to do with the tone.
Also your example wasn't that fair because it really is easy to laugh at the US society. Mexico has a genuine culture, well I've never been there, but from what I gather. I don't think it makes Mexico better necessarily, they just get the privilege of taking their society a little more seriously, or rather maybe expecting others to. I don't know any of my American (USian if you like, I don't care as long as it's not for insult's sake) friends who would blame anyone for laughing at us. We're not all bad people, and not having a rich culture doesn't make us evil... or does it?
Actually I thought India did have MTV. They have a McDonalds I hear. I was disappointed when I heard of these things. Living in New York City, I see a lot of Indians, and I'm always glad to see very few of them look like they've given in to our culture. Most other immigrants accept it with open arms. I'm not talking about our idealistic 'Freedom of Speech' and Capitalism, everyone embraces that for the most part. I'm talking about wearing a baseball cap backwards or wearing one pant leg up and blasting music out of their car.
I look up to these people because they are able to accept our ideals (not that US implements them truly or fully) without feeling the need to give up their culture.
You know, his statement doesn't imply that he has used hookers. When I first read his statement, I thought, wow, this guy must hang around some seedy places and ocassionally gets approched by hookers. Then, yes, I did consider that he may be trying to say he has used hookers in both countries.
But, that is a harsh accusation when you don't have all the facts.
I wish I had some useful advice on how to do this, but I have no idea. I wanted to let you know it hurts my brain to contemplate where to begin attacking this problem. Then again, I'm someone who sometimes has difficulty using windows dialup programs.
I've heard a lot of people say the acting in the old movies was bad, and they're probably right..... but I liked Luke's character. It may not have been done on purpose, and due to Mark Hammil's lack of acting skill, but I like how the character sounded. Whining, and corny sounding when he's excited. After watching each movie, I could laugh at it, but the 1st time, it worked. I liked this about all the characters.
I put him in that category on purpose. But, I guess if I had to order them, Liam Neeson would be 2nd followed by that general/guard guy for the princess, and then natalie portman. I think Liam Neeson has done some really great stuff, don't get me wrong, I just don't think this was it. I don't think his errors were as technical as the others, perhaps, so I think its possible to attribute to directing.
Yours was funnier and made more sense than mine, which should have read: And why wasn't there a link for [timothy] to use like he did your other interests? Fishing trips, playing with the family cat, that kind of thing. Post them man!
I don't think it had to be a kids movie. My parents didn't think Star Wars was dumb when it came out. I liked it just about as much as the adults I knew at the time, remembering back to Return of the Jedi, when I was about 10-12.
I think you have a good point, though, the E1 was definitely aimed at kids, but more so than the old movies were. Catering to all ages groups is tough, but it was what I expected from Lucas. We may see what Jar-Jar is like this time, but I think it's a sign he's going for the kids again. I didn't like Jar-Jar, but I didn't hate everything about him. Ok, I hated a lot of things about him, mostly that I couldn't understand him. And his dialog was stupid, not even cute. If they cleaned that up it wouldn't have been half as bad. Hey, I liked the rest of the Gungans (sp?), I could mostly understand them.
The more I think about it, the more I feel the acting wasn't as good. I think a lot of the lines just came out sounding unatural and phoney. I'm not talking about some complex acting errors (I'm no experienced critic). I've seen other movies by the cast, and I know they can do a much better job. Maybe it was the directing. Come to think of it, the only characters that did come off sounding good were the puppets and computer graphics. As much as I didn't understand or like what Jar-Jar was saying, it didn't sound fake. Maybe Ewan McGregor did a good job, but he didn't really have that many lines. The rest sucked.
And why where there a link for [timothy] to use like his did your other interests? Fishing trips, playing with the family cat, that kind of thing. Post them man!
Name your band something like 'Soundtrack' or 'Instrumental'. Searching for the band 'Live' on Napster usually gives you listings of live performances of other bands. 'Live' (the band), may have had the forsight to see the obscurity their name may have in large databases. - Frontman for '%alica%', the band.
It was funny. Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and not every anti-Gore sentiment is made by a Limboid. Some of us heard the original quote, and it's equally as pompus.
MP3s sound fine. I don't know what everyone is complaining about. I even know of a few live band bars in Manhattan that use 128 bit Mp3s for the in between band music, and it sounds great. I'd rather have better compression rates than frequency handling. Maybe that amounts to the same thing at high bit rates. But I'd rather have smaller files to deal with so I can fit more songs on a memory card or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
What the heck are you talking about?
Great point, but you forgot not only don't websites adhere to the standards, but most browsers don't either.
One of the things I find most annoying is that you need border=0 on images to remove that ugly purple border (on IE and Netscape), and the W3C validator says it's not a valid option.
Only a harvard grad would put footnotes in a slashdot post! (Sorry, just jealous because I went to Apex Tech; nothing wrong with footnotes, but you got to admit it looks funny here.)
A good point. Though that the site was posted than taken down could be a bad sign. It could also be that a worker there approved it not knowing the story had been up before. I've never been to internet.com (until this story provoked me to), but calendar services has been on Yahoo and other sites before for more than a year now. To be honest I don't know that many people that jump up and down about a calendar service. It sounds like a boring story to me and I could see why someone might take it down. If I ran the site though, I probably would just leave it up, to avoid putting any doubt about our posting practices.
There are some good points here, even if his accusation is not well thought out, we should be thinking about this kind of thing every so often. With the low overhead of running a marginally decent news site, I don't think there will ever be a shortage of such sites, so I'm not too worried about net wide censorship or media control of just a few conglomerates just yet. True, the popular sites may one day all be sites that push their own affiliates and owned companies, but isn't one of the great things about the internet is that there are near limitless places to go for different takes on the same thing? You may have to do some hunting to find them, to find that unbiased site, but hopefully it will be out there. And it's not that finding such sites has to be hard. There are many unbiased portal sites which simply list any site of a certain type. Some are so open they end up getting filled with bad links of sites that aren't up too long.
Sermonize away, that made a lot of sense, thanks.
Oh, also, yep that sounds like a much better way to put it. I'm not the most organized or clear writer, thanks for not biting my head off about it. :) Thanks for clearing it up a bit and adding some valuable insight to it as well.
Sometimes I wonder if even these unplanned 'defects' are really not unplanned. (Or did you mean unplanned by us). I think they may be planned in nature, only we haven't discovered the how this system of unplanned defects work. I don't think everything is planned, and I'm not going for something metaphysical here, but when something works so well and you don't understand it, it makes you wonder. Maybe a system similar to evolution is working in parrellel with evolution (or is just a part of it we haven't seen), which causes specific defects like these. Or maybe there is something like this discovered already? I'm no biologist.
I agree, except sometimes a smaller animal survives because it's small and can hide, not from another bigger animal necessarily, but from a thunderstorm, etc.
Smarter, faster, stronger isn't always better. Weaklings with sicle cell anemia survived malaria plagues, an 'error' that would be weeded out with genetic engineering.
While I agree we should use technology to improve ourselves as best we can, dispite social taboos there may be on genetic engineering, we should recognize that some seemingly harmful traits are beneficial in some circumstances. For example, it will be a long time yet until we know every consequence of a genetic disease such as Parkinsons. What if we remove this trait totally from all humanity and some previously unknown natural occurance kills off everyone without that trait? I'm not saying we have to keep it, but we should be prepared to replace it should something unforseen make it necessary to bring back. And replacing it means totally understanding it, not just sequencing the genes that cause it or knowing just enough to remove them.
Please don't take this as 'The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth', but the cycle of life is a complex system, it would be arrogant and I believe ultimatly stupid for us to tamper too much with it at our present level of technology.
I mean JonKatz's rantings, not the HGP.
I wasn't really specific about the culture, but thanks for the info, I wasn't aware Aztec culture was that much alive in Mexico. Mostly, though, I admire that they have a culture at all, whether it's a mix or not.. a culture not heavy infulenced by corporations and adverteisment campaigns.. or maybe I'm wrong about that about Mexico, I don't really know. Speedy Gonzales wasn't really entering my mind, mostly I pictured some of the footage of national holiday celebrations and parades.
I'm always amazed at how many foriegners come to visit NYC given how much were supposdly hated overseas. I think we get laughed a lot, but I don't think we're hated by everyone. I think some foreign countries look at the US and say, "Hey, they're a big bad, stupid bully, if our people had a country that big with those resources, we'd be doing a better job". And then some of them probably wonder if their people would do a better job or about the same.
What was insulting about that? Oh the gringo part? I've heard it so much it has become kind of funny. Or at least I wouldn't take it that seriously if someone said 'Hey, gringo' to me. If they said 'Hey you fucking gringo', then I might, but a lot has to do with the tone.
Also your example wasn't that fair because it really is easy to laugh at the US society. Mexico has a genuine culture, well I've never been there, but from what I gather. I don't think it makes Mexico better necessarily, they just get the privilege of taking their society a little more seriously, or rather maybe expecting others to. I don't know any of my American (USian if you like, I don't care as long as it's not for insult's sake) friends who would blame anyone for laughing at us. We're not all bad people, and not having a rich culture doesn't make us evil... or does it?
This is too funny to post anonymously! Make a humor account or something, man!
Actually I thought India did have MTV. They have a McDonalds I hear. I was disappointed when I heard of these things. Living in New York City, I see a lot of Indians, and I'm always glad to see very few of them look like they've given in to our culture. Most other immigrants accept it with open arms. I'm not talking about our idealistic 'Freedom of Speech' and Capitalism, everyone embraces that for the most part. I'm talking about wearing a baseball cap backwards or wearing one pant leg up and blasting music out of their car.
I look up to these people because they are able to accept our ideals (not that US implements them truly or fully) without feeling the need to give up their culture.
You know, his statement doesn't imply that he has used hookers. When I first read his statement, I thought, wow, this guy must hang around some seedy places and ocassionally gets approched by hookers. Then, yes, I did consider that he may be trying to say he has used hookers in both countries.
But, that is a harsh accusation when you don't have all the facts.
I wish I had some useful advice on how to do this, but I have no idea. I wanted to let you know it hurts my brain to contemplate where to begin attacking this problem. Then again, I'm someone who sometimes has difficulty using windows dialup programs.
I've heard a lot of people say the acting in the old movies was bad, and they're probably right.. ... but I liked Luke's character. It may not have been done on purpose, and due to Mark Hammil's lack of acting skill, but I like how the character sounded. Whining, and corny sounding when he's excited. After watching each movie, I could laugh at it, but the 1st time, it worked. I liked this about all the characters.
I put him in that category on purpose. But, I guess if I had to order them, Liam Neeson would be 2nd followed by that general/guard guy for the princess, and then natalie portman. I think Liam Neeson has done some really great stuff, don't get me wrong, I just don't think this was it. I don't think his errors were as technical as the others, perhaps, so I think its possible to attribute to directing.
Yours was funnier and made more sense than mine, which should have read: And why wasn't there a link for [timothy] to use like he did your other interests? Fishing trips, playing with the family cat, that kind of thing. Post them man!
I don't think it had to be a kids movie. My parents didn't think Star Wars was dumb when it came out. I liked it just about as much as the adults I knew at the time, remembering back to Return of the Jedi, when I was about 10-12.
I think you have a good point, though, the E1 was definitely aimed at kids, but more so than the old movies were. Catering to all ages groups is tough, but it was what I expected from Lucas. We may see what Jar-Jar is like this time, but I think it's a sign he's going for the kids again. I didn't like Jar-Jar, but I didn't hate everything about him. Ok, I hated a lot of things about him, mostly that I couldn't understand him. And his dialog was stupid, not even cute. If they cleaned that up it wouldn't have been half as bad. Hey, I liked the rest of the Gungans (sp?), I could mostly understand them.
The more I think about it, the more I feel the acting wasn't as good. I think a lot of the lines just came out sounding unatural and phoney. I'm not talking about some complex acting errors (I'm no experienced critic). I've seen other movies by the cast, and I know they can do a much better job. Maybe it was the directing. Come to think of it, the only characters that did come off sounding good were the puppets and computer graphics. As much as I didn't understand or like what Jar-Jar was saying, it didn't sound fake. Maybe Ewan McGregor did a good job, but he didn't really have that many lines. The rest sucked.
And why where there a link for [timothy] to use like his did your other interests? Fishing trips, playing with the family cat, that kind of thing. Post them man!
Name your band something like 'Soundtrack' or 'Instrumental'. Searching for the band 'Live' on Napster usually gives you listings of live performances of other bands. 'Live' (the band), may have had the forsight to see the obscurity their name may have in large databases. - Frontman for '%alica%', the band.
Yes, this is the end of the internet. You should sell the slashdot domain name while it's still worth something.
It was funny. Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and not every anti-Gore sentiment is made by a Limboid. Some of us heard the original quote, and it's equally as pompus.
MP3s sound fine. I don't know what everyone is complaining about. I even know of a few live band bars in Manhattan that use 128 bit Mp3s for the in between band music, and it sounds great. I'd rather have better compression rates than frequency handling. Maybe that amounts to the same thing at high bit rates. But I'd rather have smaller files to deal with so I can fit more songs on a memory card or whatever.