Yea right--if this movie is aimed at 13-yr-olds, why did it aim for the "R" rating? If it were one of those movies, it'd be a lot more like Lara Croft:Tombraider, and have T2's rating.
This isn't a movie for kids, dumbass.
They put a hot babe in there, and she does a terrific job of being a terminator. To say nothing of the whole motherly symbolism where she basically creates her own race of fighting machines by impregnating military hardware with her own programming, I think she was a terrific choice.
Many of the points people are raising in these threads seem to be born of 1. Unrealistic expectations, and 2. a fanboy attitude too easily changed to desire the Next Best Thing.
My opinion: T3 is light-years ahead of T2, and in fact does *much* to undo the damage that T2 did to the story line. T3 is also rated "R" both for the violence (which is extreme at times) and the *MINOR* nudity in the first few scenes. T3 harkens back to what made T1 such a success, and those people who think T2 was anything other than a kiddie flick that ruined the story arc first presented in T1 are wowed only by stupid advances in special effects and not a good storyline.
And now, ladies and gentlemen (and useless trolls too) I shall address those negative points made in this review and put straight what's wrong.
First off, I'd like to talk about the nudity in this film. In T1, you could actually see Arnie's noodle flapping around when he was walking up to those gang members to steal some clothing. I don't know if you noticed, but go back and check it again. If you have a remastered DVD version, good for you. If not, try to find the oldest VHS tape you have, and pay attention. Full frontal nudity. If your tape or DVD doesn't have it, either it's been edited out, or you've watched it too much to actually see what's going on.
In T3, there is no full frontal nudity. There are fuzzy, darkened boobs. Big fucking deal. You get to see her ass. And the problem with this is...? It's a nice ass, and she's not doing anything gratuitous, so it's extremely tastefully done. It's not "pandering" to adolescents. If it were, it'd be far more like Tomb Raider and wouldn't be rated "R".
Second, the reviewer seems to think that the review on CNN is part of some corporate conspiracy to present the Truth, according to AOL/Time Warner. My points: 1. Does this make the movie itself bad? No. 2. The CNN review is far more accurate than this reviewer's points.
Still, what's the reviewer's point? That every single thing that comes out of CNN's authors is necessarily biased? No, of course not. jamie makes that implication, however. I find that disingenuous.
jamie doesn't think T3 is darker than T2?! COME ON! In T2, when Arnie went into that bar, kicked everyone's ass, stabbed two or three guys (one with the guy's own knife) threatens a guy with his own shotgun, what plays when he climbs onto his "cool" stolen motorbike? "Bad to the Bone." Not a single person died in that fight. Tell me that and the stupid music isn't downplaying violence. T2 has no significant violence and that's why it wasn't even rated "R". The original T1 has Arnie punching his hand *right through* some street punk. T2 has nothing on that level of simple, horrific violence. NOTHING. And that was on purpose, because Arnie didn't want to scare his children. It was one of the only stipulations Arnie had before he agreed to do the sequel.
People, in T1 when he pulls his hand back out, there's blood and some other, darker fluid *all over his arm.*
In T2, just about the most horrific scene was the bad guy stabbing some janitor through the head. Big deal.
In T3, it's back to horrific slaughter.
In T2, the ending was happy, up-beat. There was a sense that the armageddon mentioned in T1 wasn't going to come after all, that John Connor wouldn't need to become a "big military leader."
It was a movie aimed at young kids, and the sense of a fated doom in T1 was erased. Completely.
In T3, that sense is back, that hopelessness, that despair. Oh, T3 is a darker movie alright. And the bitch terminator doesn't hold back. She *murders children*. In COLD FUCKING BLOOD.
Is this not "dark" for you jamie?! What the hell crack are *you* smoking?
And, *duh,* the scene with the skeleton clutching the chain-link fence wasn't in the original. That scene was popularized in T2. Did you honestly find that more disturbing than the two infiltrators coming into the human hideout and gunning
On the other hand, why would the average Office-using user need such a behemoth to begin with? When it gets up to the point where such power is a justifiable expense, it seems to me that the majority of people buying are likely people who'll use the extra power to begin with.
Anyway, the actual data is very interesting--it's just the guy's stupid comments in the middle that pull the overall worth down significantly.
..because most people have apparently not read through the whole thing.
"[...] In other words, most people should ignore floating-point results because they do not use floating-point anyway (or not much)."
This is utter bullshit. Floating point is extremely important for many productivity applications--anything graphics, 3D, modelling, scientific, CAD, etc. Ignore floating point?! What the hell crack is he smoking?
The whole article is filled with this kind of fart-biting. The data are far more interesting without his stupid inane conclusions muddying the waters.
Uh.. he assumes it because he's mostly correct? Where, again, do you see a BitTorrent tracker with the tens of people sharing at once *now* after it's already been Slashdotted?
... for popular websites that update frequently with new material or items.
Sites like fazed.net, or Slashdot, or elsewise would only need to send out updates. Everyone subscribed gets the news stories, media, Flash anims, music, whatever; Slashdot doesn't get Slashdotted; and with a back-up website for archive searching or live forums, a new distribution method might just come into its own.
It's just a matter of time before someone who can't afford huge hosting costs but wants to publish regular, interesting media pops up and make it popular.
No, you couldn't set up a Torrent to do the same thing because a torrent references static content, while a k2b channel can reference anything broadcast over the channel.
The people who are subscribed to the channels leave it up over long periods of time and can receive large streams of data of varying content from the broadcaster.
A BitTorrent is for one, or a set, of predetermined items.
Uh.. when was the last time you left your BitTorrent up after finishing your download?
The point of k2b is to set up a distribution chain of interested people beforehand, and then when the item is actually released, everyone gets a copy in a timely fashion.
Leaving the channel up means a thousand people can rely on someone else's ability to pick up media from popular sites and have it ready to play the next morning on their hard drives. It's just a matter of time before this becomes popular. Leave the finding up to qualified individuals with a lot of time on their hands--who find media and software that you're interested in better than you do--and what was a waste of time for a thousand people now turns into a waste of time for one individual and a boon for the rest of the distribution chain.
Since when does a BitTorrent link stay up with more than a few people for more than a few minutes after it's been Slashdotted? Go look at GameTab's BitTorrent links. Most of them just have a single sharing user--the BitTorrent server.
The guy's an egomaniac, both online and off; if he's the maintainer of a project, he's god of the project. Whoever handed that one off to him is to blame, not ESR himself, because it's not like he's gone through some horrible, recent metamorphosis.:)
..lets you use tabbed windows even if the application doesn't support it. For example, you could tab Netscape 4.75 and PWM can even force new netscape windows into the tabbed window.
It's also the fastest, one of the most light-weight, window managers that still allows enough keystroke and mouse programmability to make it worth switching to.
After all, why waste time on something that looks good but eats up more than half your available ram?
So.. if the whole premise is that the RIAA's and Madonna's actions "are deceptive" and "affect commerce," and it's a given that they're being deceptive, how is it again that P2P inteference is "affecting commerce"?
So says the article:
'The actions of RIAA and MPAA in placing files on p2p networks to deceive users of those networks into thinking they're actual music or video files, to waste their time, resources, energy and bandwidth (not to mention hard drive space and CPU cycles) quite likely is "deceptive" and undoubtedly "affects commerce."'... but then completely neglects to explain how the RIAA's actions actually "affect" commerce while going on at lengths to describe how the actions are deceptive.
Oh, so he thinks that wasting someone's free time and a few fractions of a cent worth of hard drive storage somehow qualifies as "affecting commerce"?
Does he think that the commerce in this case is the transaction of the consumer and their ISP? Who says there's a guarantee that the customer must have clean connectivity and that disconnects, packet loss, and other forms of network problems aren't part of this nebulous "commerce"?
And who says that inserting machines onto a P2P network that say, "Yea, I have that song. Here!" and then send chunks of garbage to the requester is illegal to begin with? Does that mean that anyone who causes a song or movie to be corrupted to the receiver (for example, by deliberately jiggling the network cable) is similarly liable? Is corruption defined as missing pieces, too?
This is all such fucking bullshit. The answer is superior technology and networking that is robust to interference, not lawyers and legislation.
The only people fucking whining about Madonna inserting those samples are the ones who are too stupid to use a network that enforces file integrity with MD5 or rsync-like rolling hashes. Let the whiners whine. Madonna and people like her aren't going away. The solution is to deal with it with a better P2P network, not to sue Madonna into the dirt. As soon as we do that, we're no better than them.
..the bikes change direction without banking and *after* the bike's already passed the entirety of the corner of the turn. In other words, when the bike changes direction, it pivots on the extreme rear of its rear wheel.
Looks terrible. I mean I know the movie had them turning 90 degree angles all over the place and doing crazy tricks and so on, but when the camera would follow them, it would bank and smooth out the motion a little. It wasn't quite so jarring an effect in the movie.
..and as many other media formats as possible. Then you don't have to worry about locking yourself into the money-grubbing patent royalties of the Fraunhofer Institute.
Why it was you of course.:) Unless you were lying to me.. and you said you did it without a single cheat code. Impressive. I couldn't finish it without going huge into cheat land and no one else I know who's played it, actually completed the whole thing through.:)
Oh, and in regards to your "either it matters or it doesn't really matter" post, you're wrong there, and it's an unfortunate black and white world you live in. Let me give you three examples to illuminate what I'm talking about.
. Getting enough air to breathe really matters. . Getting a new computer when your old one breaks down doesn't really matter. It somewhat matters because as a human we don't need it for physical survival, but it sure would be nice, because we like computers. . The life of two dung beetles in Africa doesn't matter at all.
The term "doesn't really" is neutral, as in "I suppose I don't really care one way or the other whether she gets another haircut," or "That new hybrid car doesn't really have much horsepower," or "The new pepsi flavour doesn't really taste that great, but I'll drink it," or "The sky doesn't really look blue," or "H.P. Lovecraft doesn't really write books."
All these mean similar things: "I am neutral as to whether she gets a haircut," "The new hybrid car is of low to average horsepower," "The new pepsi flavour is average," "The sky is sometimes blue, sometimes pale blue, and sometimes white with clouds," "H.P. Lovecraft wrote more in his letters and short stories than he did in his novels."
Even if you interpret it as "doesn't actually" that is just a "not positively true," or "not 100% actual."
At any rate, when I wrote it I meant it in the neutral sense, and it's unfortunate that I need to define every little colloquialism, every symbol, and every sentence just because you like to interpret it in a way that makes me wrong just by default. Here's a hint: when you're dealing with someone with a multi-syllabic grasp of English, try to think of another way he might mean his words instead of picking a narrow definition through which you can interpret him to be wrong just because you disagree with what he's saying.
I wonder whether you're doing that consciously, or whether perhaps you're doing it by reflex because you read--and understood--what I meant but disagreed so strongly you went into denial and your brain rationalised my words into a falsehood without you even knowing.
Now that I think of it, it's almost a doublethink, wouldn't you agree? (Get ready, here it comes again folks.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yea right--if this movie is aimed at 13-yr-olds, why did it aim for the "R" rating? If it were one of those movies, it'd be a lot more like Lara Croft:Tombraider, and have T2's rating.
This isn't a movie for kids, dumbass.
They put a hot babe in there, and she does a terrific job of being a terminator. To say nothing of the whole motherly symbolism where she basically creates her own race of fighting machines by impregnating military hardware with her own programming, I think she was a terrific choice.
Warning: Spoilers.
Many of the points people are raising in these threads seem to be born of 1. Unrealistic expectations, and 2. a fanboy attitude too easily changed to desire the Next Best Thing.
My opinion: T3 is light-years ahead of T2, and in fact does *much* to undo the damage that T2 did to the story line. T3 is also rated "R" both for the violence (which is extreme at times) and the *MINOR* nudity in the first few scenes. T3 harkens back to what made T1 such a success, and those people who think T2 was anything other than a kiddie flick that ruined the story arc first presented in T1 are wowed only by stupid advances in special effects and not a good storyline.
And now, ladies and gentlemen (and useless trolls too) I shall address those negative points made in this review and put straight what's wrong.
First off, I'd like to talk about the nudity in this film. In T1, you could actually see Arnie's noodle flapping around when he was walking up to those gang members to steal some clothing. I don't know if you noticed, but go back and check it again. If you have a remastered DVD version, good for you. If not, try to find the oldest VHS tape you have, and pay attention. Full frontal nudity. If your tape or DVD doesn't have it, either it's been edited out, or you've watched it too much to actually see what's going on.
In T3, there is no full frontal nudity. There are fuzzy, darkened boobs. Big fucking deal. You get to see her ass. And the problem with this is...? It's a nice ass, and she's not doing anything gratuitous, so it's extremely tastefully done. It's not "pandering" to adolescents. If it were, it'd be far more like Tomb Raider and wouldn't be rated "R".
Second, the reviewer seems to think that the review on CNN is part of some corporate conspiracy to present the Truth, according to AOL/Time Warner. My points: 1. Does this make the movie itself bad? No. 2. The CNN review is far more accurate than this reviewer's points.
Still, what's the reviewer's point? That every single thing that comes out of CNN's authors is necessarily biased? No, of course not. jamie makes that implication, however. I find that disingenuous.
jamie doesn't think T3 is darker than T2?! COME ON! In T2, when Arnie went into that bar, kicked everyone's ass, stabbed two or three guys (one with the guy's own knife) threatens a guy with his own shotgun, what plays when he climbs onto his "cool" stolen motorbike? "Bad to the Bone." Not a single person died in that fight. Tell me that and the stupid music isn't downplaying violence. T2 has no significant violence and that's why it wasn't even rated "R". The original T1 has Arnie punching his hand *right through* some street punk. T2 has nothing on that level of simple, horrific violence. NOTHING. And that was on purpose, because Arnie didn't want to scare his children. It was one of the only stipulations Arnie had before he agreed to do the sequel.
People, in T1 when he pulls his hand back out, there's blood and some other, darker fluid *all over his arm.*
In T2, just about the most horrific scene was the bad guy stabbing some janitor through the head. Big deal.
In T3, it's back to horrific slaughter.
In T2, the ending was happy, up-beat. There was a sense that the armageddon mentioned in T1 wasn't going to come after all, that John Connor wouldn't need to become a "big military leader."
It was a movie aimed at young kids, and the sense of a fated doom in T1 was erased. Completely.
In T3, that sense is back, that hopelessness, that despair. Oh, T3 is a darker movie alright. And the bitch terminator doesn't hold back. She *murders children*. In COLD FUCKING BLOOD.
Is this not "dark" for you jamie?! What the hell crack are *you* smoking?
And, *duh,* the scene with the skeleton clutching the chain-link fence wasn't in the original. That scene was popularized in T2. Did you honestly find that more disturbing than the two infiltrators coming into the human hideout and gunning
On the other hand, why would the average Office-using user need such a behemoth to begin with? When it gets up to the point where such power is a justifiable expense, it seems to me that the majority of people buying are likely people who'll use the extra power to begin with.
Anyway, the actual data is very interesting--it's just the guy's stupid comments in the middle that pull the overall worth down significantly.
..because most people have apparently not read through the whole thing.
"[...] In other words, most people should ignore floating-point results because they do not use floating-point anyway (or not much)."
This is utter bullshit. Floating point is extremely important for many productivity applications--anything graphics, 3D, modelling, scientific, CAD, etc. Ignore floating point?! What the hell crack is he smoking?
The whole article is filled with this kind of fart-biting. The data are far more interesting without his stupid inane conclusions muddying the waters.
..maybe it's just that men would rather play their own gender than engage in irreversible cross-dressing... Ya think?
I seem to recall that a bright source of light can make carbon nanotubes burn up like ignited magnesium.
Yea, I'd be the first to wear or use this fabric.. "Smile for the camera!"
"No, wait!" *clic-FLASH* "AAAARGH THE HUMANITY!"
Uh.. he assumes it because he's mostly correct? Where, again, do you see a BitTorrent tracker with the tens of people sharing at once *now* after it's already been Slashdotted?
... for popular websites that update frequently with new material or items.
Sites like fazed.net, or Slashdot, or elsewise would only need to send out updates. Everyone subscribed gets the news stories, media, Flash anims, music, whatever; Slashdot doesn't get Slashdotted; and with a back-up website for archive searching or live forums, a new distribution method might just come into its own.
It's just a matter of time before someone who can't afford huge hosting costs but wants to publish regular, interesting media pops up and make it popular.
No, you couldn't set up a Torrent to do the same thing because a torrent references static content, while a k2b channel can reference anything broadcast over the channel.
The people who are subscribed to the channels leave it up over long periods of time and can receive large streams of data of varying content from the broadcaster.
A BitTorrent is for one, or a set, of predetermined items.
*shrug* Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Uh.. when was the last time you left your BitTorrent up after finishing your download?
The point of k2b is to set up a distribution chain of interested people beforehand, and then when the item is actually released, everyone gets a copy in a timely fashion.
Leaving the channel up means a thousand people can rely on someone else's ability to pick up media from popular sites and have it ready to play the next morning on their hard drives. It's just a matter of time before this becomes popular. Leave the finding up to qualified individuals with a lot of time on their hands--who find media and software that you're interested in better than you do--and what was a waste of time for a thousand people now turns into a waste of time for one individual and a boon for the rest of the distribution chain.
Since when does a BitTorrent link stay up with more than a few people for more than a few minutes after it's been Slashdotted? Go look at GameTab's BitTorrent links. Most of them just have a single sharing user--the BitTorrent server.
The guy's an egomaniac, both online and off; if he's the maintainer of a project, he's god of the project. Whoever handed that one off to him is to blame, not ESR himself, because it's not like he's gone through some horrible, recent metamorphosis. :)
..lets you use tabbed windows even if the application doesn't support it. For example, you could tab Netscape 4.75 and PWM can even force new netscape windows into the tabbed window.
It's also the fastest, one of the most light-weight, window managers that still allows enough keystroke and mouse programmability to make it worth switching to.
After all, why waste time on something that looks good but eats up more than half your available ram?
(*cough* E *cough*)
This guy pretends to be Randolph Carter from the writings of H.P. Loveraft. You know, the guy who created that great literary monster, Cthulhu.
:-)
It's quite a funny read.
Nice. You're comparing decryption of unauthorised transmissions from the states with murder. That's *real* smart.
It's not a crime. It's a civil offense.
...bzzzt, try again. No one will adopt it until you can offer a permanent irrevocable guarantee that you'll grant royalty-free access to the patents.
Otherwise, you're just another schmoe who thinks he's come up with something unique.
So.. if the whole premise is that the RIAA's and Madonna's actions "are deceptive" and "affect commerce," and it's a given that they're being deceptive, how is it again that P2P inteference is "affecting commerce"?
... but then completely neglects to explain how the RIAA's actions actually "affect" commerce while going on at lengths to describe how the actions are deceptive.
So says the article:
'The actions of RIAA and MPAA in placing files on p2p networks to deceive users of those networks into thinking they're actual music or video files, to waste their time, resources, energy and bandwidth (not to mention hard drive space and CPU cycles) quite likely is "deceptive" and undoubtedly "affects commerce."'
Oh, so he thinks that wasting someone's free time and a few fractions of a cent worth of hard drive storage somehow qualifies as "affecting commerce"?
Does he think that the commerce in this case is the transaction of the consumer and their ISP? Who says there's a guarantee that the customer must have clean connectivity and that disconnects, packet loss, and other forms of network problems aren't part of this nebulous "commerce"?
And who says that inserting machines onto a P2P network that say, "Yea, I have that song. Here!" and then send chunks of garbage to the requester is illegal to begin with? Does that mean that anyone who causes a song or movie to be corrupted to the receiver (for example, by deliberately jiggling the network cable) is similarly liable? Is corruption defined as missing pieces, too?
This is all such fucking bullshit. The answer is superior technology and networking that is robust to interference, not lawyers and legislation.
The only people fucking whining about Madonna inserting those samples are the ones who are too stupid to use a network that enforces file integrity with MD5 or rsync-like rolling hashes. Let the whiners whine. Madonna and people like her aren't going away. The solution is to deal with it with a better P2P network, not to sue Madonna into the dirt. As soon as we do that, we're no better than them.
Sheesh. Haven't we learned anything yet?
"subtle philosophy" in the original Matrix?
Gimme a break. The science behind the Matrix is anything but. The only thing that made these films great was the harrowing action sequences.
..the bikes change direction without banking and *after* the bike's already passed the entirety of the corner of the turn. In other words, when the bike changes direction, it pivots on the extreme rear of its rear wheel.
Looks terrible. I mean I know the movie had them turning 90 degree angles all over the place and doing crazy tricks and so on, but when the camera would follow them, it would bank and smooth out the motion a little. It wasn't quite so jarring an effect in the movie.
..and as many other media formats as possible. Then you don't have to worry about locking yourself into the money-grubbing patent royalties of the Fraunhofer Institute.
Why it was you of course. :) Unless you were lying to me.. and you said you did it without a single cheat code. Impressive. I couldn't finish it without going huge into cheat land and no one else I know who's played it, actually completed the whole thing through. :)
...superior horror experience, scary enough that I only know a single individual who managed to play the whole thing through.
If you strike Red Hat and SuSE down, the rest of us will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
That is all.
Walk up to a large stone that you know is part of Mt. Fuji and give it a good, solid kick.
Or even better, stomp your foot on the ground beneath you.
Or even better--wave your hand in the air.
Hey, they didn't say how much you had to move it--only that you had to move it.
Oh, and in regards to your "either it matters or it doesn't really matter" post, you're wrong there, and it's an unfortunate black and white world you live in. Let me give you three examples to illuminate what I'm talking about.
. Getting enough air to breathe really matters.
. Getting a new computer when your old one breaks down doesn't really matter. It somewhat matters because as a human we don't need it for physical survival, but it sure would be nice, because we like computers.
. The life of two dung beetles in Africa doesn't matter at all.
The term "doesn't really" is neutral, as in "I suppose I don't really care one way or the other whether she gets another haircut," or "That new hybrid car doesn't really have much horsepower," or "The new pepsi flavour doesn't really taste that great, but I'll drink it," or "The sky doesn't really look blue," or "H.P. Lovecraft doesn't really write books."
All these mean similar things: "I am neutral as to whether she gets a haircut," "The new hybrid car is of low to average horsepower," "The new pepsi flavour is average," "The sky is sometimes blue, sometimes pale blue, and sometimes white with clouds," "H.P. Lovecraft wrote more in his letters and short stories than he did in his novels."
Even if you interpret it as "doesn't actually" that is just a "not positively true," or "not 100% actual."
At any rate, when I wrote it I meant it in the neutral sense, and it's unfortunate that I need to define every little colloquialism, every symbol, and every sentence just because you like to interpret it in a way that makes me wrong just by default. Here's a hint: when you're dealing with someone with a multi-syllabic grasp of English, try to think of another way he might mean his words instead of picking a narrow definition through which you can interpret him to be wrong just because you disagree with what he's saying.
I wonder whether you're doing that consciously, or whether perhaps you're doing it by reflex because you read--and understood--what I meant but disagreed so strongly you went into denial and your brain rationalised my words into a falsehood without you even knowing.
Now that I think of it, it's almost a doublethink, wouldn't you agree? (Get ready, here it comes again folks.)