Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 239

So you're saying it's OK to scam people or lie to them because you can't get a better job, 'cause that's what it sounds like you're saying.

That's pretty close to saying that going on a crime spree is justifiable for the same reason.

Comment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... (Score 1) 1822

whipslash, you seem earnest about improving /. and interested in listening to what people have to say. I appreciate that, and will overlook your mid-7-digit UID. ;-)

Seriously though, I sincerely hope that your tone reflects the desires of the new owners, because /. has been a great resource over the years and something I still check out most days. I understand the need to make money with the site, but it seems you (and by extension the new owners) are interested in preserving/restoring what makes /. great.

Good luck.

Comment Re: just use openstreetmap... (Score 1) 130

Yeah, because Google certainly isn't in the news on a monthly basis for randomly dropping or changing something they've provided and which people like and relied upon for years, for no apparent reason. Google is extremely unreliable in that regard, and even if it is their right to be that way, which it is, the recommendation to not rely on their services for something like RouteBuilder is a good one.

Comment Re:Baffling (Score 1) 400

Were you around 20 years ago? Both franchises attract their share of People Who Take It Too Far.

It's both a blessing and a curse that we live in a society where people have the freedom to be so obsessed over a movie, TV show, or video game, etc.

It's obviously a blessing because we have the freedom to do so. Our societies and countries (in much of the world) aren't so oppressive that we are prevented from engaging and sharing in this kind of creative output, and a lot of us are freed from having to spend the majority of our time not starving to death or not being killed by someone else. This is most indeed a blessing I wouldn't want to trade for anything.

The curse, of course, is that some people will trade these cultural ephemera for real life, and equate them with something deep and meaningful, which they generally aren't, not in the grand scheme of Life, the Universe and Everything. If your stated religion is "Jedi", and it's not meant ironically or as a joke, then there is probably something wrong with you.

However, the blessings outweigh the curses in my opinion.

Comment Re:Lame (Score 2) 400

Did you know "Planet of the Apes" was rated "G"?

All I can say it, you shouldn't go back and read fairy tales from before the last century. You might gasp yourself to death.

Believe it or not, there was a time when children's fare didn't automatically mean something so sterile and artificial that no self-aware person could take it seriously.

Perhaps this is why the news is full of college students, legal adults by the way, who are whining and pitching a fit because they've been made to feel uncomfortable by mere words and are demanding someone (else) make it stop.

Perhaps this is why we've created a generation of kids who are so used to having everything spoon fed to them and to being led around and handed everything that adolescence routinely extends in the late 20s and beyond, and for many, never truly ends.

Perhaps this is why a majority of the country is trying create and expand a Nanny State to allow them, or anyone else, to be reduced in responsibility and duty, to the level of infants regardless of what they are truly capable of.

Perhaps this is why we are heading for a society in which it's been made impossible to fail, and therefore impossible to also truly succeed.

Comment Re:Lame (Score 1) 400

I'm with you. You have to retain your sense of wonder, which the movies captured perfectly. You can't dismiss them because they were written and designed for kids, and a lot of us first saw them as kids, and with the perspective of kids. You can't approach them with a jaded view based on how Hollywood has evolved in the nearly 40 years since. You can't criticize them for not being good "science fiction" because they aren't, and aren't trying to be. They also aren't "Shakespeare"... but are less removed from the kinds of works the Bard wrote than many snobby elites would acknowledge. They are myths, stories as old and universal as humankind itself. The setting, the technology and spaceships and blasters and light sabers and robots, is not central to what they are, just a medium in which the stories are told in a very visually appealing way.

If approached with the right mindset, and taking them for what they are, Saturday morning serials writ large, they accomplish their goals with great artistry and technical skill. And for similar reasons, this is why the prequels largely failed.

Comment Re:Lame (Score 1) 400

I disagree, and would offer the grandparent poster a drink at my party.

Science fiction is more than a setting. It must contain elements that are extrapolated from the reality we know using scientific principles or ideas based on scientific principles (i.e., "speculative fiction"). "Star Wars" wouldn't fundamentally change if it were set in feudal Japan and called "The Hidden Fortress" and the characters were riding horses and using swords, because the most important elements of the story aren't its specific setting nor anything based on science.

In "Star Wars", the "what" and "how" and "why" of the technology, settings or phenomena aren't important, and generally don't matter at all. This is why "midichlorians" was such a stupid addition: the Force doesn't need to be explained; it's fine the way originally presented. It's magic, and works best in the story if it remains magic.

"Star Wars" is a fantasy in a science fiction setting. Similarly, most modern "SF" films are really just horror films or action films in a science fiction setting. There's nothing wrong with that if they're good movies, and many of them are, but it helps to classify them correctly.

Comment Re:I was never meant to be good (Score 2) 400

But it wasn't the CGI excess that killed the prequels (although it helped), it was the wooden acting, the horrible dialog, endless scenes of people sitting around talking (but not about stuff that was all that interesting), a political plot that not fleshed out enough to be interesting or really understandable, and the horribly uneven pacing. Short action sequences, long drawn out talky parts, 87 minutes of pod racing without 1 molecule of drama, "Spinning is good; I'll try that.", a love story that made "The Silence of the Lambs" look sweet and well-adjusted, a 115 minute light-saber duel over lava that was worse than watching someone else play a video game because again it wasn't in the same timezone as drama because there was nothing as stake, the end was pre-ordained.

It's not that I object to the idea of the movie having some depth and political intrigue... I can point to Star Trek episodes that are nothing but political intrigue and people sitting around talking that I think are brilliant, but they also have a world that's fleshed out enough that these ideas can be explored in depth. You can't do that in a 4 paragraph crawl at the beginning, and expect people to care.

It's Star Wars: it's space monks vs. evil cyborgs. With spaceships.

Trying to make it about more than that in the format of a movie is a waste of time. The original trilogy didn't and was all the better for it.

Comment Re:wah wah wah clickbait (Score 2) 400

There were changes that I thought were fine and added to the movies. There were clearly places where they added details that were likely only left out originally because of budget or technical constraints. There were a couple of "beauty shots" of the X-Wings on their way to the Death Star that were a really nice addition, for instance. And fixing little mistakes, etc., is something I would whole-heartedly support. Or how the Emperor originally appeared like some weird bug-eyed muppet. Changing that was a good improvement.

Of course, there were a lot of additions that were just dumb, or worse ("Greedo shot first" being probably the most heinous). Aside from all the other reasons people hate the change, I think one of the most ridiculous doesn't even get mentioned... Han Solo's head is missed by a blaster bolt hitting inches away and he doesn't even blink.

Comment Re:wah wah wah clickbait (Score 2) 400

I thought the theory was much stronger with Yoda as the undercover Sith, but in either case, it would have been an instance of a character being revealed to be to someone radically different than we realized, which underscored many of the best plot points of the original trilogy, but were starky (in comparison) absent from the sequels, unless you count Padme's "stunt double" and I don't. That added nothing to the story and could only have served to confuse viewers.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.