Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way (Score 2) 1032 1032

That's because the US public only understands value as something that can be monetized, which is why there is so little support for art in this country...the lack of support results in a lack of education and personal development in art...which results in art related fields being stigmatized...yet people who live at the top of the monetized art forms are worshipped as Gods societally (Hollywood actors, directors, RIAA Musicians, etc...).

So what happens is we proclaim this handful of highly successful musicians and actors as the greatest thing in public society, laud them all over television and radio, then we tell anyone who actually goes to school to attempt to be in the field of those same worshipped people that they have wasted their money, deserve their $100,000 college debt, and can go fuck themselves off to McDonalds for a job...and don't you DARE try to raise the minimum wage...your problems are your fault, stupid fucking kids.

Comment: Re:One highly-publicized case is all it took (Score 4, Informative) 489 489

A private company paid a bunch of money to another private company and users got the same video streaming performance they used to have before private company B starting throttling private company A's ability to deliver content that was already paid for by the users to both companies involved.


Comment: Re:Why does this need a sequel? (Score 5, Insightful) 299 299

One question - please take into account that I am not suggesting with this question that I believe Deckard is a replicant, athough it may sound like it.

Why does everyone who drags out the whole 'The screenwriter and Harrison Ford deny it and Ridley didn't start saying it until later' argument ignore the fact that in the actual shooting script and at least some versions of the screenplay Deckard was clearly and specifically a replicant? There were lines about it in the script. Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott actually fought about it during filming...all of this is documented. Also it is an argument that presents itself as ignorant of the fact that there were 3 screenwriters who worked on it at different times. Regardless of whether Deckard is intended to be a replicant or not, this particular argument is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.

This argument of Deckard's humanity having a definitive answer is tired and pointless...the reason the film is as good as it is is in part due to the ambiguity of this very question. DADoES and Blade Runner both explore the concept of an android that does not in fact know it is an android quite thoroughly, which is what makes this particular ambiguity important to the film. "Questions are interesting, answers are boring."

I would much rather talk about what is uniquely beautiful about the film IF Deckard is human, and then talk about how that changes IF Deckard is a replicant and what that means in order to actually examine the real beauty of the film as a work of art...rather than a bunch of chest beating neanderthalic yelling about who's got the better source for their argument and thumping about how they're right and the other group is dumb and somehow ruining the movie by having a favored opinion.

Watching people have this argument is like sitting in an audience during a performance of Waiting for Godot and having no-one around you understand why it's a comedy.

Comment: Re:Deckard (Score 1) 299 299

Rachel's lack of expiration date is only mentioned in the original theatrical release. Not in DC or Final Cut.

Point being: There's going to be canon issues with this movie, and most likely nobody who likes any version of the original is going to be totally happy with it, even if it is amazing.

Any programming language is at its best before it is implemented and used.