I agree with you, but don't understand why it's necessary for him to do this. He's got hundreds of millions, if not billions. Can't he (and his kids and their kids and their kids and their kids...) retire off of that comfortably? Why does he continuously do things to generate ill-will among people who once were his biggest fans?
He must realize what most people think of him. He's clearly gone mad from greed.
Yeah, but a lot of people actually like that movie (I like the original version and I saw it in 3D because some friends were going and it sucked, the whole thing was a blur to me; I don't bother going to 3D movies any more - doesn't work for me). Very few people like the prequels (Ep. 1 especially) enough to want to go pay $15+ to see it in fake 3D.
If it really costs $6-$18 million to do... that's an amazing waste of money. I guess it's better that it goes to computer animator salaries instead of paychecks for overpaid actors, but wow. That's a lot of money to essentially throw away for a shitty result. I guess Star Wars, even prequel re-releases, can top $18 million at the box office though, so from a business standpoint it makes sense. Lucas has already lost any integrity (artistic and otherwise) he might have had, so I can't even say anything bad about him on that front.
I was a sullen teen when the prequels came out. I had grown up during the 90's resurgence in popularity of the original films, and loved them (saw the special editions in theaters when they came out and everything). I was not obsessed like a lot of people, but it meant a lot to me. I liked all the computer games too (where are the good star wars games these days? how hard can it be? the Battlefront games were the latest good ones - copying the Battlefield formula - Battlefront 2 is a PS2 and original xbox game, from 2005!).
I saw Ep. 1 the day it came out. Didn't think it was dead-awful, but was disappointed. I left feeling empty, and more sullen than before. I went to see it again with a friend later who hadn't seen it yet - perhaps I was in a bad mood or something the first time and this time I'd enjoy it - nope, made me feel worse.
I was even more of a sullen teen for Ep. 2. I again saw it on opening day (why not, I thought?) and was again deeply disappointed, although some of the sound effects were cool (sonic bomb or whatever it was, despite that not making sense in space).
One thing I was not entertained by was the sullen teenaged angst. I was a sullen angsty teenager at the time and Anakin's sullen angstiness was just stupid and cringe-inducing. I guess some people are immune to bad acting and can enjoy that kind of thing anyway, though (how else can you explain some of the awful movies that come out).
I was (and still am) something of a film snob though, which most super-big Star Wars fans really aren't. But I really think you're overestimating the entertainment value of Anakin's shit acting (and the shit script), or the ability for the audience to connect with him in any way, even to those who presumably can identify with him (angsty teens).
Color and 3D in Casablanca would be a tragedy, but as for "super hi-def"...
I've seen Casablanca projected on 35mm film (three times in different theaters including at the George Eastman House), and I've seen it on Blu-Ray on a big screen at 1080p. The job they've done on restoring the film elements is astounding (as you'd hope for such an important film), and it's already "super hi-def" as even film in the 40's is capable of extremely high resolution. It looks astonishingly good.
You can certainly appreciate the cinematography on a small screen just watching the DVD or seeing it broadcast on TV or whatever, but that doesn't mean that seeing it as it was meant to be seen originally (film resolution and on a big screen) doesn't make it better:)
I can see walking out of "Brewster McCloud" - I lasted about 45 minutes watching that at 2AM on TV, and that was pushing it - but Altman has made a lot of great films... I think he's fairly hit and miss, but when he hits, he hits big - MASH for example. I guess I am just amazed you call him a "foul person" for the films he makes, but you don't mention which ones you're referring to. Most directors end up with a few stinkers along the way, and you can't judge them based on their worst.
I lived in So Cal for two years, while going to grad school - for geology. I'm from Western New York originally; we've only had two notable earthquakes in the area since I was born 24 years ago, both in the 3-4 range (first one I didn't feel as I was in a moving vehicle, second one was just recently while I was in California).
While at grad school, I - again - rather unluckily was out of the state both times there was a relatively large earthquake (including the recent big stuff in Mexico), but I did experience several smaller ones, ranging from ~2s that most people don't notice to ~4s.
Now, I know people from So Cal like to say things like "anything under 6 is typically just noise". However, almost everyone I regularly was in contact with (including almost a hundred students a semester that I taught classes to, almost all of whom were native to the area, professors and other students in the geology department, and other people I knew from the area that didn't even know I was studying geology) would keep talking about it for days whenever there was something bigger than a 3 or so (assuming it was close enough to feel it). Even just the small jolt you get from one of those is quite exciting, apparently even to those who were quite used to them.
Yes, no one's actually worried about these small earthquakes causing any harm, but when they happen they remind you that you never know when the next "big one" will happen. Those that knew I was studying geology would always ask me about that when a small earthquake happened - "will the small ones release pressure so the big ones are smaller?" etc.. The ones that weren't at all concerned were those who didn't realize that the next "big one" will almost certainly happen in the next 30 years or so, and could come at any time.
tl;dr: Southern California residents like to exaggerate how they feel about small earthquakes!
I have a 2009 13" MBP and the glossy screen is fine. I've used it outdoors and in places with a lot of light (coming from overhead) and in front of bright windows. I too thought this would be a big problem when I first got it, but it's actually only a minor inconvenience at worst - it's almost always avoidable. The screen is also brighter and more contrasty than typical laptop screens, which helps a lot in those situations. The glass panel in front of the screen is also a lot less fragile than a bare LCD screen, and is easier to clean - these things matter a lot if you're doing a lot of traveling with it.
I went from a Thinkpad (which I bought with SUSE preinstalled, and which now is used as a linux server and is still in great condition) to a Macbook Pro, and I had exactly the same concerns you did: keyboard & mouse nub, and glossy screen (I have a 13"). I don't care about the convertible tablet thing, but that's kind of an unusual requirement (and I didn't know you could get a Thinkpad that does that?)
I spent plenty of time trying them out in the store, and I was fairly used to the keyboard and OS X for light use as I frequently used the Mac computer lab while in grad school as it was conveniently located (I generally only used those computers to kill time). When I bought it, I still wasn't sure I would like not having those features I thought were so important on the Thinkpad, but thought the thing was so nice otherwise that it was worth it.
Well, within a couple days, my opinion totally changed about those Thinkpad features. They keyboard on the Macbook Pro is fantastic - it doesn't seem like it should be if you look at it, but it's almost perfect. The only thing I don't like is that the "fn" key is farthest to the left on the bottom row, rather than the control key - but it's like that on the Thinkpad too! Otherwise, the feel and usability of the keyboard is excellent. When I type on the Thinkpad now, I still consider it good compared to most keyboards these days, but not *as* good.
The mouse nub? The Macbook Pro touchpad is easily 100x more useful and easy to use (and the touchpad on the Thinkpad is essentially unusable, as with most non-Apple laptops). It's, again, fantastic - I have a mouse plugged in when I'm at my desk, but I only use it for really precise stuff in e.g. Photoshop (though most of my photo editing gets done with the touchpad - there are just a few photoshop things where it isn't easy to use).
The glossy screen? Not actually a problem. Yes, you will sometimes see some glare on the screen. You can usually just slightly tilt the screen to avoid it, but I will concede that there are times where it can get annoying. Generally, 99% of the time it's easy to avoid, though. And the increased brightness and contrast of the display more than makes up for it, anyway. It looks fantastic, and can be calibrated very well for accurate color and so on if that matters to you. The thinkpad screen is *horrid* - after getting it (you can't try those out in a store first, by the way) I found some threads in the Lenovo forums discussing how bad the screen was. A Lenovo representative was participating in the discussion to determine if it was something they should do something about.
I volunteered to send my laptop to him so he could see for himself (it seems like there should have been an easier way for him to look at one of the computers in question, but whatever). He then admitted that yes, the screen looks pretty awful. He got the repair guys to put in the screen from the other screen manufacturer they were using in exchange for me sending it in (which wasn't a valid warranty repair, shipping was at their expense, and I didn't need the machine urgently, so quite a win for me), but it was still really bad - only slightly improved. The threads in the forum died, and nothing ever came of it. They - and I guess most people who bought the laptops - didn't care.
Well, I care, and I know that if I buy an Apple laptop, it will have a fantastic screen.
Finally, the Thinkpad mostly runs Linux flawlessly, but I do a lot of photo editing and such, which isn't really a great experience in Linux. I was doing most of my stuff in an XP VM, which was really annoying (dual boot would have been fine probably, but that's annoying too as I usually had lots of stuff running in the background). So, OS X made a lot of sense, and after using it for a year and a half I now vastly prefer it over Linux (and especially over Windows). Just a great, great machine all around, and I foresee no reason why I'd ever prefer a Thinkpad over an MBP in the future.
Well, 2 cents during the depression is equivalent to something like 25-30 cents today. The cost of a cheap loaf of bread was apparently about 10 cents during the depression according to the internet, or ~$1.50 today - which seems about right (although the $1.50 bread you get today might be processed crap, good bread from bakeries doesn't cost much more than that - I buy "real" loaves of bread that taste great for about $2.50).
Now, the typical slashdot reader probably makes enough money that quibbling over a quarter isn't worth it. But, there are many, many people in the world - including in the US - who would still today quibble over a quarter for a $1.50 item. Pricing differences of under a dollar matter even to many people who can afford the more expensive product (including myself, though depending on the product I'll frequently buy the more expensive item if I think the quality's better - but I will consider it carefully first).
That's not to say that these days we have it as bad as people did in the depression (though plenty of people *are* that badly off today), just that your example of 2 cents mattering a lot isn't *that* strange once you consider inflation and everything:)
I agree, but want to comment with my university teaching experience. As a grad student I taught labs for geology 101, about 80 students a semester in three sections total (yeah, larger classes than desirable - it was a public state school). I was given essentially free reign over the material I taught - a professor from the department does an "evaluation" by sitting in for the first few minutes of a class once a semester, but a couple of semesters it never happened and no one cared.
Now, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. However, I took the job very seriously, and tried to teach them a lot of stuff from the materials given (as well as a lot I developed on my own). However, I understood that it was essentially a worthless class for most of them, because most were not even science majors, much less geology majors. And, these are the students who didn't develop those critical thinking skills earlier in life like they should have. Seriously, some were really, really bad - but were somehow successful in their humanities or whatever courses I guess.
So, I stressed constantly that I didn't care if they knew and remembered the geology stuff. What I made them do was use critical thinking and scientific problem-solving to approach each problem or situation. They could be wildly wrong with their answers geologically speaking, so long as they their thought processes made sense (within my ability to understand what they were thinking obviously) and they approached the problem scientifically (and didn't take shortcuts, which rarely work in science).
I made the course quite difficult, and while I was very forgiving for the students who didn't have good critical thinking skills, I did fail at least a handful of students each semester - for something most came in thinking would be a blow-off course.
Students told me after taking the course that they really appreciated what I was trying to do. They are able to use the skills learned in my course in their other courses that have nothing to do with science. I also got anonymous comments from students who hated me, but I took that as a good sign:)
My long-winded point is that critical thinking and related skills *can* be taught at the university level, if the courses are approached in the right way. Most of the other grad students taught their labs essentially by-the-book, and when I filled in for others who were sick or whatever I could sense a huge difference in the dynamic of the students compared to my students. When I answered their questions, I could tell they just wanted to get the right answer - they didn't care about the process of getting the answer, which is ultimately more important.
Of course, now it's been nearly a year since I left grad school, I didn't get into any PhD programs and I've only had one (unsuccessful) job interview, so I guess perhaps this stuff isn't as important after all?;)
I think the point he was making is that yes, those who read slashdot and use windows probably all did the things you describe. I use OS X on my macbook pro, and use linux on my other computers, but I have a dual-boot with Windows 7 to play games - although I don't actually play them very frequently so it's mostly a waste of space - and even though I rarely use it I went through all the settings to get it to look "classic" and work the way I want (although I like many of the changes in Windows 7 so I didn't make it 100% classic).
However, the millions and millions of people who *don't* read slashdot don't do any of those things. If you've ever helped a "typical user" with their Windows computer, chances are everything was left at its default - sometimes even the background image. How anyone can stand the non-classic Windows UI is beyond me - it looks absolutely awful - but most people apparently don't mind.
I can relate to the "sensation-seeker" aspect. I don't feel very many emotional highs or lows in normal life, and enjoy actually feeling something... anything... sometimes. No, I'm not an emotionless robot, it just takes a lot to arouse my emotions:)
However, I don't like horror games. I don't get really freaked out or anything (although particularly good games have occasionally had that effect), I just am discouraged from continuing from something inside me. For example, I played the demo of Dead Space 2 a few days ago... I played for about three or four minutes. Killed a couple of creatures and I had enough. Wasn't too scared to continue (the bit I played wasn't much different from any other shooter with scary monsters)... it was something else.
I got the same feeling playing Half Life 2 - I think I got about 80% through that because the gameplay was great, but I also kind of lost interest in the story there. It has that horror atmosphere, though, that doesn't sit well with me. The Ravenclaw sequence didn't really bother me - I had heard it was supposed to be really scary - but most of the rest of the levels did.
The thing is that I really, really love movies that can evoke emotion. I don't generally watch a lot of horror films (they don't evoke anything in me unless they're really excellent), but I love suspense films and dramas (and even good romances). When I do watch films that are supposed to be scary, I never get that negative feeling I get when playing scary games. I'll watch the film, possibly be genuinely scared by it (and maybe even jump when the killer pops up), but I don't get that desire to shut it off (unless it's just a bad film, which is often the case). The horror films I like are mostly Asian ones, for what it's worth.
So, being interactive or not is a major factor I think. Naturally I didn't read TFA, but the summary seems to make it sound like they're interchanging the experience of playing a game and watching a scary movie. I think it's fundamentally different, and hope that further studies look into it.
Also, the study where people were shown gory films seems a bit odd to bring in to this. It's about context... a video game where you brutally kill hundreds of people, with blood and guts flying everywhere, is not particularly disturbing. But a video game where you scoop out monkey brains and peel the skin off of childrens' faces, with no reason for doing either thing, would certainly disturb a lot of people.
You might also say it teaches them to hide things properly (they will always find a way), and to keep track of their private information. It's a real-world lesson - the way most people handle their data, there's essentially nothing stopping the government or corporations or identity thieves or whoever from knowing absolutely everything about them. Probably not that poster's kids, though.
If the kid learns that lesson in a safe way (only the parent finds their incriminating data), then they don't have to learn it the hard way, which is what everyone else will do. And it doesn't have to be super sinister stuff - it will also teach the kids not to be stupid about what they post on facebook or elsewhere online.
To be clear - I think the fear/respect choice regarding Big Brother is false... you must both fear and respect them, and then you'll be able to subvert them when necessary.
He's referring to iTunes with the 5 computer thing. You can enable five computers on your account, and they can all access all your paid-for stuff. This extends to iPhone apps, where you can install all of the apps from another account and still use your own account!
Also, there's a difference between buying a physical object and taking care of it and buying a piece of data and taking care of it, particularly the fact that the actual value of the data (and the bandwidth required to transmit it) is effectively zero, whereas e.g. a physical CD has certain costs.
I think you're right. An interesting problem. I normally don't see superhero movies, unless I see it for free for whatever reason (on an airplane or something), or if I know it's going to be something special (as in the case of Watchmen). I did enjoy Iron Man, which I saw because I'm a fan of Robert Downey Jr.
Now, I don't like comic books (or graphic novels). I find myself just reading the words and ignoring the pictures, which both defeats the purpose and means I miss a lot. I don't like comic book movies because they're stupid action movies. People talk about the deep themes in e.g. Spiderman and I think, "what the fuck?" Clearly, these people have never seen the truly great films, or any foreign films (which often approach "deep themes" in very interesting ways). I knew from the trailer that Watchmen was going to be different. I thought it was fantastic, even though I kind of lost track of the plot at the end. The people who thought it was a superhero movie were confused and disappointed, and the people who like interesting films didn't see it because they thought it was a superhero movie.
I knew from the trailer that it would alienate and confuse a lot of people like that. It was like asking a typical US moviegoer to see a foreign film (one that isn't Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, dubbed), or asking a non-typical one to ignore their typical Hollywood filter. It certainly wasn't marketed (initially) as being much different from a typical superhero movie, except obviously much darker, unless you were paying attention and can discern things like that from the filming techniques used.
Unknown actors enhancing a film is certainly true for the reason you suggest (assuming they're decent actors). However, what about all the truly great actors? I don't confuse the roles of my favorite actors, because they're *so good* that you see them as the character, not the actor (in most cases - it depends on having a good script and a good director too).
You can take anyone considered a great actor as an example... even someone who usually played very similar characters, like Humphrey Bogart or even Alec Guinness. Or an interesting example might be Peter Sellers - he could play literally any character - or several characters at once, as in Dr. Strangelove and a couple other films. However, if you pay close attention, many of his various characters share a *lot* of traits. Yet each time, you're watching a totally different, totally convincing character - it's not Peter Sellers you're watching. A couple of other good examples are Peter O'Toole and Michael Caine. Both have *very* distinctive screen presence and voices. But each totally inhabits a role, and you don't feel that you're seeing anything but the characters they're playing.
The problem with modern actors such as those being discussed in this thread is that they're really not good actors. But they bring in the audience, which is why they make all that money. With these movies, it's not about the art form.
There *are* of course good young actors working today, and some of them even make a lot of money. Johnny Depp is an example. Excellent actor... he often is put in profit-driven movies with bad scripts and bad directing, though.
As an example, check out any private university campus in the northeast - North Face is both a fashion and status symbol. There's a particular style of North Face fleece jacket that's basically standard issue for sorority girls, and many guys wear similar ones. Mostly black. Girls can choose any color of course.
Patagonia is similar, and though it has a fairly different image from North Face, for many it's still a desirable fashion/status brand. Both those brands realize this, and they market to two segments - those that want high-quality outdoor clothing (which they both make - the quality really is excellent for both of those brands), and those who want the logo.
In any case, it's worlds away from anything in Sears, and both those who appreciate high quality high performance outdoor clothing and those who want it for the fashion and status aspect realize that.
I don't live in Manhattan, but I have several friends who do (I am from Western New York, and many people from here go to New York to find a good job since there are none in WNY) and I've been there many times. It really is like American Psycho for a lot of people. Not just New York, of course, but it's a good example.
Personally, I care about wearing good-looking and high-quality clothing, but I don't like branding. I don't buy things with visible logos. Most better (but non-luxury) brands understand this desire, and always offer at least a portion of their products without overt logos, or at least with subtle ones. I do have a North Face rain/wind jacket, actually, that has their standard-placement logo - but it was on clearance for a good price, is very high quality, fits perfectly, and looks good, so I'm not complaining too much about that one.
I don't know that they are actually recording your information when you do that. They do that rather than having to key in your DOB. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Normally I wouldn't give either the government or large corporations the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these matters, but in this case it makes sense to I think.
When I first moved to CA, I kept my NY driver's license for months ("illegally" since I was employed in CA, I got a ~$40 fine for that when I got my CA license). I don't buy many things that require checking ID, but when I did, several times (one time at Target, was probably a bottle of wine actually) the cashier swiped my card without thinking. There's no magnetic strip on NY licenses, so they were confused for a moment and then had to key in the DOB, which is all they need.
I think in CA and other states where they have the magnetic strip there must be regulations about how that data is used - I think its primary purpose is to prevent minors from buying stuff with fake IDs, so I assume it's limited to that specific use (obviously the workaround would be to get a fake ID from another state, so I guess I don't know if that's the real reason the magnetic strips were implemented, but that's the only situation in which it seems to be used).
When I lived in CA I did almost all my grocery shopping at Trader Joe's. I am from Western New York, and there we have Wegmans, which is easily the greatest large chain grocery store in the country (and I've been to grocery stores all over, and all the major chains). I was shocked when I first went into a regular grocery store in California, and left without buying anything I needed. The entire time I lived there (two years) the only thing I bought in regular grocery stores was Coke Zero when it was on sale for less than $1 per 2-liter bottle. You can't get that at Trader Joe's anyway.
There was almost never anything I needed or wanted that couldn't be had at Trader Joe's, and the prices are excellent - about the same as at Wegmans. Not the absolute lowest prices, but the quality is very high. They've got a lot of stuff that regular grocery stores don't even sell, too, much of it stuff I grew to like very much (and which I miss now that I'm back in WNY, despite having Wegmans again).
Neither Trader Joe's or Wegmans ask for zip codes or anything. Wegmans has a shopper's club card, but doesn't mark everything up ridiculously if you don't use it. Generally regular prices are perfectly reasonable, and sale prices are actually sale prices. None of the crap they pull in CA. And of course, you can give them fake card info anyway:)
Gas stations check the zip code against your credit card billing address, which makes some sense as an anti-theft measure - gasoline would be one of the easiest things to purchase with a stolen card.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you, but don't understand why it's necessary for him to do this. He's got hundreds of millions, if not billions. Can't he (and his kids and their kids and their kids and their kids...) retire off of that comfortably? Why does he continuously do things to generate ill-will among people who once were his biggest fans?
He must realize what most people think of him. He's clearly gone mad from greed.
Yeah, but a lot of people actually like that movie (I like the original version and I saw it in 3D because some friends were going and it sucked, the whole thing was a blur to me; I don't bother going to 3D movies any more - doesn't work for me). Very few people like the prequels (Ep. 1 especially) enough to want to go pay $15+ to see it in fake 3D.
If it really costs $6-$18 million to do... that's an amazing waste of money. I guess it's better that it goes to computer animator salaries instead of paychecks for overpaid actors, but wow. That's a lot of money to essentially throw away for a shitty result. I guess Star Wars, even prequel re-releases, can top $18 million at the box office though, so from a business standpoint it makes sense. Lucas has already lost any integrity (artistic and otherwise) he might have had, so I can't even say anything bad about him on that front.
I was a sullen teen when the prequels came out. I had grown up during the 90's resurgence in popularity of the original films, and loved them (saw the special editions in theaters when they came out and everything). I was not obsessed like a lot of people, but it meant a lot to me. I liked all the computer games too (where are the good star wars games these days? how hard can it be? the Battlefront games were the latest good ones - copying the Battlefield formula - Battlefront 2 is a PS2 and original xbox game, from 2005!).
I saw Ep. 1 the day it came out. Didn't think it was dead-awful, but was disappointed. I left feeling empty, and more sullen than before. I went to see it again with a friend later who hadn't seen it yet - perhaps I was in a bad mood or something the first time and this time I'd enjoy it - nope, made me feel worse.
I was even more of a sullen teen for Ep. 2. I again saw it on opening day (why not, I thought?) and was again deeply disappointed, although some of the sound effects were cool (sonic bomb or whatever it was, despite that not making sense in space).
One thing I was not entertained by was the sullen teenaged angst. I was a sullen angsty teenager at the time and Anakin's sullen angstiness was just stupid and cringe-inducing. I guess some people are immune to bad acting and can enjoy that kind of thing anyway, though (how else can you explain some of the awful movies that come out).
I was (and still am) something of a film snob though, which most super-big Star Wars fans really aren't. But I really think you're overestimating the entertainment value of Anakin's shit acting (and the shit script), or the ability for the audience to connect with him in any way, even to those who presumably can identify with him (angsty teens).
Color and 3D in Casablanca would be a tragedy, but as for "super hi-def"...
I've seen Casablanca projected on 35mm film (three times in different theaters including at the George Eastman House), and I've seen it on Blu-Ray on a big screen at 1080p. The job they've done on restoring the film elements is astounding (as you'd hope for such an important film), and it's already "super hi-def" as even film in the 40's is capable of extremely high resolution. It looks astonishingly good.
You can certainly appreciate the cinematography on a small screen just watching the DVD or seeing it broadcast on TV or whatever, but that doesn't mean that seeing it as it was meant to be seen originally (film resolution and on a big screen) doesn't make it better :)
Don't you remember, Amidala's republican credits are no good on Tatooine, that's why they had to gamble on the pod race.
Yeah, you're right, the whole thing made no sense :)
I can see walking out of "Brewster McCloud" - I lasted about 45 minutes watching that at 2AM on TV, and that was pushing it - but Altman has made a lot of great films... I think he's fairly hit and miss, but when he hits, he hits big - MASH for example. I guess I am just amazed you call him a "foul person" for the films he makes, but you don't mention which ones you're referring to. Most directors end up with a few stinkers along the way, and you can't judge them based on their worst.
I lived in So Cal for two years, while going to grad school - for geology. I'm from Western New York originally; we've only had two notable earthquakes in the area since I was born 24 years ago, both in the 3-4 range (first one I didn't feel as I was in a moving vehicle, second one was just recently while I was in California).
While at grad school, I - again - rather unluckily was out of the state both times there was a relatively large earthquake (including the recent big stuff in Mexico), but I did experience several smaller ones, ranging from ~2s that most people don't notice to ~4s.
Now, I know people from So Cal like to say things like "anything under 6 is typically just noise". However, almost everyone I regularly was in contact with (including almost a hundred students a semester that I taught classes to, almost all of whom were native to the area, professors and other students in the geology department, and other people I knew from the area that didn't even know I was studying geology) would keep talking about it for days whenever there was something bigger than a 3 or so (assuming it was close enough to feel it). Even just the small jolt you get from one of those is quite exciting, apparently even to those who were quite used to them.
Yes, no one's actually worried about these small earthquakes causing any harm, but when they happen they remind you that you never know when the next "big one" will happen. Those that knew I was studying geology would always ask me about that when a small earthquake happened - "will the small ones release pressure so the big ones are smaller?" etc.. The ones that weren't at all concerned were those who didn't realize that the next "big one" will almost certainly happen in the next 30 years or so, and could come at any time.
tl;dr: Southern California residents like to exaggerate how they feel about small earthquakes!
I have a 2009 13" MBP and the glossy screen is fine. I've used it outdoors and in places with a lot of light (coming from overhead) and in front of bright windows. I too thought this would be a big problem when I first got it, but it's actually only a minor inconvenience at worst - it's almost always avoidable. The screen is also brighter and more contrasty than typical laptop screens, which helps a lot in those situations. The glass panel in front of the screen is also a lot less fragile than a bare LCD screen, and is easier to clean - these things matter a lot if you're doing a lot of traveling with it.
I went from a Thinkpad (which I bought with SUSE preinstalled, and which now is used as a linux server and is still in great condition) to a Macbook Pro, and I had exactly the same concerns you did: keyboard & mouse nub, and glossy screen (I have a 13"). I don't care about the convertible tablet thing, but that's kind of an unusual requirement (and I didn't know you could get a Thinkpad that does that?)
I spent plenty of time trying them out in the store, and I was fairly used to the keyboard and OS X for light use as I frequently used the Mac computer lab while in grad school as it was conveniently located (I generally only used those computers to kill time). When I bought it, I still wasn't sure I would like not having those features I thought were so important on the Thinkpad, but thought the thing was so nice otherwise that it was worth it.
Well, within a couple days, my opinion totally changed about those Thinkpad features. They keyboard on the Macbook Pro is fantastic - it doesn't seem like it should be if you look at it, but it's almost perfect. The only thing I don't like is that the "fn" key is farthest to the left on the bottom row, rather than the control key - but it's like that on the Thinkpad too! Otherwise, the feel and usability of the keyboard is excellent. When I type on the Thinkpad now, I still consider it good compared to most keyboards these days, but not *as* good.
The mouse nub? The Macbook Pro touchpad is easily 100x more useful and easy to use (and the touchpad on the Thinkpad is essentially unusable, as with most non-Apple laptops). It's, again, fantastic - I have a mouse plugged in when I'm at my desk, but I only use it for really precise stuff in e.g. Photoshop (though most of my photo editing gets done with the touchpad - there are just a few photoshop things where it isn't easy to use).
The glossy screen? Not actually a problem. Yes, you will sometimes see some glare on the screen. You can usually just slightly tilt the screen to avoid it, but I will concede that there are times where it can get annoying. Generally, 99% of the time it's easy to avoid, though. And the increased brightness and contrast of the display more than makes up for it, anyway. It looks fantastic, and can be calibrated very well for accurate color and so on if that matters to you. The thinkpad screen is *horrid* - after getting it (you can't try those out in a store first, by the way) I found some threads in the Lenovo forums discussing how bad the screen was. A Lenovo representative was participating in the discussion to determine if it was something they should do something about.
I volunteered to send my laptop to him so he could see for himself (it seems like there should have been an easier way for him to look at one of the computers in question, but whatever). He then admitted that yes, the screen looks pretty awful. He got the repair guys to put in the screen from the other screen manufacturer they were using in exchange for me sending it in (which wasn't a valid warranty repair, shipping was at their expense, and I didn't need the machine urgently, so quite a win for me), but it was still really bad - only slightly improved. The threads in the forum died, and nothing ever came of it. They - and I guess most people who bought the laptops - didn't care.
Well, I care, and I know that if I buy an Apple laptop, it will have a fantastic screen.
Finally, the Thinkpad mostly runs Linux flawlessly, but I do a lot of photo editing and such, which isn't really a great experience in Linux. I was doing most of my stuff in an XP VM, which was really annoying (dual boot would have been fine probably, but that's annoying too as I usually had lots of stuff running in the background). So, OS X made a lot of sense, and after using it for a year and a half I now vastly prefer it over Linux (and especially over Windows). Just a great, great machine all around, and I foresee no reason why I'd ever prefer a Thinkpad over an MBP in the future.
Well, 2 cents during the depression is equivalent to something like 25-30 cents today. The cost of a cheap loaf of bread was apparently about 10 cents during the depression according to the internet, or ~$1.50 today - which seems about right (although the $1.50 bread you get today might be processed crap, good bread from bakeries doesn't cost much more than that - I buy "real" loaves of bread that taste great for about $2.50).
Now, the typical slashdot reader probably makes enough money that quibbling over a quarter isn't worth it. But, there are many, many people in the world - including in the US - who would still today quibble over a quarter for a $1.50 item. Pricing differences of under a dollar matter even to many people who can afford the more expensive product (including myself, though depending on the product I'll frequently buy the more expensive item if I think the quality's better - but I will consider it carefully first).
That's not to say that these days we have it as bad as people did in the depression (though plenty of people *are* that badly off today), just that your example of 2 cents mattering a lot isn't *that* strange once you consider inflation and everything :)
I agree, but want to comment with my university teaching experience. As a grad student I taught labs for geology 101, about 80 students a semester in three sections total (yeah, larger classes than desirable - it was a public state school). I was given essentially free reign over the material I taught - a professor from the department does an "evaluation" by sitting in for the first few minutes of a class once a semester, but a couple of semesters it never happened and no one cared.
Now, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. However, I took the job very seriously, and tried to teach them a lot of stuff from the materials given (as well as a lot I developed on my own). However, I understood that it was essentially a worthless class for most of them, because most were not even science majors, much less geology majors. And, these are the students who didn't develop those critical thinking skills earlier in life like they should have. Seriously, some were really, really bad - but were somehow successful in their humanities or whatever courses I guess.
So, I stressed constantly that I didn't care if they knew and remembered the geology stuff. What I made them do was use critical thinking and scientific problem-solving to approach each problem or situation. They could be wildly wrong with their answers geologically speaking, so long as they their thought processes made sense (within my ability to understand what they were thinking obviously) and they approached the problem scientifically (and didn't take shortcuts, which rarely work in science).
I made the course quite difficult, and while I was very forgiving for the students who didn't have good critical thinking skills, I did fail at least a handful of students each semester - for something most came in thinking would be a blow-off course.
Students told me after taking the course that they really appreciated what I was trying to do. They are able to use the skills learned in my course in their other courses that have nothing to do with science. I also got anonymous comments from students who hated me, but I took that as a good sign :)
My long-winded point is that critical thinking and related skills *can* be taught at the university level, if the courses are approached in the right way. Most of the other grad students taught their labs essentially by-the-book, and when I filled in for others who were sick or whatever I could sense a huge difference in the dynamic of the students compared to my students. When I answered their questions, I could tell they just wanted to get the right answer - they didn't care about the process of getting the answer, which is ultimately more important.
Of course, now it's been nearly a year since I left grad school, I didn't get into any PhD programs and I've only had one (unsuccessful) job interview, so I guess perhaps this stuff isn't as important after all? ;)
I think the point he was making is that yes, those who read slashdot and use windows probably all did the things you describe. I use OS X on my macbook pro, and use linux on my other computers, but I have a dual-boot with Windows 7 to play games - although I don't actually play them very frequently so it's mostly a waste of space - and even though I rarely use it I went through all the settings to get it to look "classic" and work the way I want (although I like many of the changes in Windows 7 so I didn't make it 100% classic).
However, the millions and millions of people who *don't* read slashdot don't do any of those things. If you've ever helped a "typical user" with their Windows computer, chances are everything was left at its default - sometimes even the background image. How anyone can stand the non-classic Windows UI is beyond me - it looks absolutely awful - but most people apparently don't mind.
The photos are pretty bad too, from a product photography standpoint. As a photographer I think that says a lot about this release of "stuff".
I can relate to the "sensation-seeker" aspect. I don't feel very many emotional highs or lows in normal life, and enjoy actually feeling something... anything... sometimes. No, I'm not an emotionless robot, it just takes a lot to arouse my emotions :)
However, I don't like horror games. I don't get really freaked out or anything (although particularly good games have occasionally had that effect), I just am discouraged from continuing from something inside me. For example, I played the demo of Dead Space 2 a few days ago... I played for about three or four minutes. Killed a couple of creatures and I had enough. Wasn't too scared to continue (the bit I played wasn't much different from any other shooter with scary monsters)... it was something else.
I got the same feeling playing Half Life 2 - I think I got about 80% through that because the gameplay was great, but I also kind of lost interest in the story there. It has that horror atmosphere, though, that doesn't sit well with me. The Ravenclaw sequence didn't really bother me - I had heard it was supposed to be really scary - but most of the rest of the levels did.
The thing is that I really, really love movies that can evoke emotion. I don't generally watch a lot of horror films (they don't evoke anything in me unless they're really excellent), but I love suspense films and dramas (and even good romances). When I do watch films that are supposed to be scary, I never get that negative feeling I get when playing scary games. I'll watch the film, possibly be genuinely scared by it (and maybe even jump when the killer pops up), but I don't get that desire to shut it off (unless it's just a bad film, which is often the case). The horror films I like are mostly Asian ones, for what it's worth.
So, being interactive or not is a major factor I think. Naturally I didn't read TFA, but the summary seems to make it sound like they're interchanging the experience of playing a game and watching a scary movie. I think it's fundamentally different, and hope that further studies look into it.
Also, the study where people were shown gory films seems a bit odd to bring in to this. It's about context... a video game where you brutally kill hundreds of people, with blood and guts flying everywhere, is not particularly disturbing. But a video game where you scoop out monkey brains and peel the skin off of childrens' faces, with no reason for doing either thing, would certainly disturb a lot of people.
You might also say it teaches them to hide things properly (they will always find a way), and to keep track of their private information. It's a real-world lesson - the way most people handle their data, there's essentially nothing stopping the government or corporations or identity thieves or whoever from knowing absolutely everything about them. Probably not that poster's kids, though.
If the kid learns that lesson in a safe way (only the parent finds their incriminating data), then they don't have to learn it the hard way, which is what everyone else will do. And it doesn't have to be super sinister stuff - it will also teach the kids not to be stupid about what they post on facebook or elsewhere online.
To be clear - I think the fear/respect choice regarding Big Brother is false... you must both fear and respect them, and then you'll be able to subvert them when necessary.
He's referring to iTunes with the 5 computer thing. You can enable five computers on your account, and they can all access all your paid-for stuff. This extends to iPhone apps, where you can install all of the apps from another account and still use your own account!
Also, there's a difference between buying a physical object and taking care of it and buying a piece of data and taking care of it, particularly the fact that the actual value of the data (and the bandwidth required to transmit it) is effectively zero, whereas e.g. a physical CD has certain costs.
I think you're right. An interesting problem. I normally don't see superhero movies, unless I see it for free for whatever reason (on an airplane or something), or if I know it's going to be something special (as in the case of Watchmen). I did enjoy Iron Man, which I saw because I'm a fan of Robert Downey Jr.
Now, I don't like comic books (or graphic novels). I find myself just reading the words and ignoring the pictures, which both defeats the purpose and means I miss a lot. I don't like comic book movies because they're stupid action movies. People talk about the deep themes in e.g. Spiderman and I think, "what the fuck?" Clearly, these people have never seen the truly great films, or any foreign films (which often approach "deep themes" in very interesting ways). I knew from the trailer that Watchmen was going to be different. I thought it was fantastic, even though I kind of lost track of the plot at the end. The people who thought it was a superhero movie were confused and disappointed, and the people who like interesting films didn't see it because they thought it was a superhero movie.
I knew from the trailer that it would alienate and confuse a lot of people like that. It was like asking a typical US moviegoer to see a foreign film (one that isn't Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, dubbed), or asking a non-typical one to ignore their typical Hollywood filter. It certainly wasn't marketed (initially) as being much different from a typical superhero movie, except obviously much darker, unless you were paying attention and can discern things like that from the filming techniques used.
Unknown actors enhancing a film is certainly true for the reason you suggest (assuming they're decent actors). However, what about all the truly great actors? I don't confuse the roles of my favorite actors, because they're *so good* that you see them as the character, not the actor (in most cases - it depends on having a good script and a good director too).
You can take anyone considered a great actor as an example... even someone who usually played very similar characters, like Humphrey Bogart or even Alec Guinness. Or an interesting example might be Peter Sellers - he could play literally any character - or several characters at once, as in Dr. Strangelove and a couple other films. However, if you pay close attention, many of his various characters share a *lot* of traits. Yet each time, you're watching a totally different, totally convincing character - it's not Peter Sellers you're watching. A couple of other good examples are Peter O'Toole and Michael Caine. Both have *very* distinctive screen presence and voices. But each totally inhabits a role, and you don't feel that you're seeing anything but the characters they're playing.
The problem with modern actors such as those being discussed in this thread is that they're really not good actors. But they bring in the audience, which is why they make all that money. With these movies, it's not about the art form.
There *are* of course good young actors working today, and some of them even make a lot of money. Johnny Depp is an example. Excellent actor... he often is put in profit-driven movies with bad scripts and bad directing, though.
Combine Watson with Japanese female robots. Problem solved.
As an example, check out any private university campus in the northeast - North Face is both a fashion and status symbol. There's a particular style of North Face fleece jacket that's basically standard issue for sorority girls, and many guys wear similar ones. Mostly black. Girls can choose any color of course.
Patagonia is similar, and though it has a fairly different image from North Face, for many it's still a desirable fashion/status brand. Both those brands realize this, and they market to two segments - those that want high-quality outdoor clothing (which they both make - the quality really is excellent for both of those brands), and those who want the logo.
In any case, it's worlds away from anything in Sears, and both those who appreciate high quality high performance outdoor clothing and those who want it for the fashion and status aspect realize that.
I don't live in Manhattan, but I have several friends who do (I am from Western New York, and many people from here go to New York to find a good job since there are none in WNY) and I've been there many times. It really is like American Psycho for a lot of people. Not just New York, of course, but it's a good example.
Personally, I care about wearing good-looking and high-quality clothing, but I don't like branding. I don't buy things with visible logos. Most better (but non-luxury) brands understand this desire, and always offer at least a portion of their products without overt logos, or at least with subtle ones. I do have a North Face rain/wind jacket, actually, that has their standard-placement logo - but it was on clearance for a good price, is very high quality, fits perfectly, and looks good, so I'm not complaining too much about that one.
I don't know that they are actually recording your information when you do that. They do that rather than having to key in your DOB. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Normally I wouldn't give either the government or large corporations the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these matters, but in this case it makes sense to I think.
When I first moved to CA, I kept my NY driver's license for months ("illegally" since I was employed in CA, I got a ~$40 fine for that when I got my CA license). I don't buy many things that require checking ID, but when I did, several times (one time at Target, was probably a bottle of wine actually) the cashier swiped my card without thinking. There's no magnetic strip on NY licenses, so they were confused for a moment and then had to key in the DOB, which is all they need.
I think in CA and other states where they have the magnetic strip there must be regulations about how that data is used - I think its primary purpose is to prevent minors from buying stuff with fake IDs, so I assume it's limited to that specific use (obviously the workaround would be to get a fake ID from another state, so I guess I don't know if that's the real reason the magnetic strips were implemented, but that's the only situation in which it seems to be used).
When I lived in CA I did almost all my grocery shopping at Trader Joe's. I am from Western New York, and there we have Wegmans, which is easily the greatest large chain grocery store in the country (and I've been to grocery stores all over, and all the major chains). I was shocked when I first went into a regular grocery store in California, and left without buying anything I needed. The entire time I lived there (two years) the only thing I bought in regular grocery stores was Coke Zero when it was on sale for less than $1 per 2-liter bottle. You can't get that at Trader Joe's anyway.
There was almost never anything I needed or wanted that couldn't be had at Trader Joe's, and the prices are excellent - about the same as at Wegmans. Not the absolute lowest prices, but the quality is very high. They've got a lot of stuff that regular grocery stores don't even sell, too, much of it stuff I grew to like very much (and which I miss now that I'm back in WNY, despite having Wegmans again).
Neither Trader Joe's or Wegmans ask for zip codes or anything. Wegmans has a shopper's club card, but doesn't mark everything up ridiculously if you don't use it. Generally regular prices are perfectly reasonable, and sale prices are actually sale prices. None of the crap they pull in CA. And of course, you can give them fake card info anyway :)
Or 90210, but we already know there are actually all kinds of weirdos living there...
Gas stations check the zip code against your credit card billing address, which makes some sense as an anti-theft measure - gasoline would be one of the easiest things to purchase with a stolen card.
Clearly ;)