Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score 1) 301

by Moridineas (#49388547) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

While Transformers upgraded his career, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull killed his chances of getting similar roles.

I thought we all agreed that nobody was ever supposed to mention that movie again? I'm pretty sure it's in the official slashdot forum rules somewhere...

Comment: Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score 2) 301

by Grishnakh (#49388163) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

Yep, that's about it. Too bad George didn't keep him (or other decent directors) for all the other movies he made.

And I'm not saying that episodes 4-6 were utterly fantastic movies in every way; obviously they had a good bit of camp (esp. #4), but that was part of the charm I think. They were never meant to be ultra-serious, "deep" movies with Oscar-winning performances (not that the Oscars are good indicators of performance quality these days anyway), they were meant to be visual feasts that were fun to watch while eating popcorn and watching it on a big screen. They had mildly interesting plots, decent characters, good comedic relief (thanks C3PO!), they weren't "dark" or "gritty", all in all they were great escapist entertainment, and while again not having top-of-the-line acting and script, what they had served the movies well.

That all changed with the Prequels. The plots weren't that bad and the characters might have been OK, the visuals were certainly great for the time (though too fake-looking, but lots of high-CGI movies of that era suffered the same problems), but the horrible acting and dialog really ruined it all, they broke the suspension of disbelief. (The obvious racist stereotypes in Ep.1 didn't help.) I've seen better acting on fan-made Star Trek episodes. And at least with the fan-made Star Trek stuff, you know going into it that this is what you're going to be watching. I don't expect to see amateurish acting in a $100M+ movie. And also, my expectations are much higher: I'm not forgiving of seeing a highly-paid professional actor deliver amateurish acting, while I am forgiving of an unpaid truly amateur actor deliver amateurish acting.

Comment: Re:It is open source, it isn't free (Score 1) 196

A patent promise doesn't specifically forbid certain behaviors - it merely gives a legal guarantee that the patent holder will not sue if certain conditions are met. In the absence of such a promise, the patent holder can sue in more cases. I just don't see how no promise can be better than an explicit promise, no matter how meager. So long as you know (or can reasonably assume) that someone holds a patent, it is a threat regardless of the license, unless it contains its own patent promise.

Comment: Re:Copper and alcohol (Score 1) 115

by PitaBred (#49387845) Attached to: Thousand-Year-Old Eye Salve Kills MRSA

So you prefer PVC for your water pipes? That tends to grow nasty stuff in it, and not be great at dealing with temperature shifts. Or cast iron, which rusts? Steel?

Copper is used in MANY systems, and almost universally in plumbing, the world over. US, UK, Mexico and Canada all use it as their primary potable water piping solution, and even the EU uses it commonly: water pipe european union&f=false

Comment: Re:No. I disagree. (Score 1) 158

by ScentCone (#49387675) Attached to: Tatooine Youth Suspected In Terrorist Attack

just because they aren't fighting for -YOUR- concept of freedom, doesn't mean they aren't fighting for freedom

Which is exactly why I cited examples where any rational person couldn't get it wrong. Nobody who is fighting for the power to take away other people's freedoms (say, of speech, assembly, religion, etc) is fighting for freedom. It's possible to objectively look at two different fights, and see where one is actually about freedom, and the other is about gaining power to deny freedom.

Your knowledge of the revolution and the governance of England is also rather lacking.

The governance of England (not to let it off the hook there, even so) was not the same as England's governance of the colonies. Don't tell me to learn more about it when you paint with a brush so broad you miss out on that reality. The Americans were fighting to be free of how England was ruling the colonies. Even if you consider the then-state-of-affairs in England to have been the model of freedom (plainly not true), the colonists did not enjoy the same liberties or representation.

That's not to sugar-coat the man Che became and his eventual ruthlessness.

"Became?" He started out that way, and didn't stop. He was no champion of a constitutional democracy. Didn't seek one, and didn't act to establish one. What he and dictators like Castro found to dislike about the regimes against which they rebelled has nothing to do with their vision for a totalitarian communist paradise. They set out to achieve what the Castros have been using violent oppression of their own people to preserve ever since.

If they were ever about freedom, they wouldn't need to lock people away or simply kill them for speaking their minds.

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.