... just says that more people will leave the movie looking for a fight than for a philosophical discussion
This is what I'm talking about. It was my experience that the movie drove more people to philosophical discussion than it drove to fighting. In fact, I know many people who talked about the movie for hours, yet I know of no one who was "looking for a fight" after the movie. I heard about the some kids emulating the fight scenes, but that's it - heresay. So I still think his analysis was way wrong - and your defense is wrong too - Ebert is too old PC to see the art in the movie. One of the ideas explored in the movie - a vivid portrayal of one man's slip into insanity - was completly ignored by Ebert. Face it - he was way off.
I used to respect Roger Ebert's opinion until I read his review of "Fight Club". Now I think that movies was pretty damn good, but I respect the fact that not everyone would like it. But Ebert's chief reason for not liking it (stated clearly in his review) was that he was afraid that there would be many young people aping the fighting in the movie. He actually admitted that some interesting philosophy discussions would come out of the movie, but he said they weren't worth the risk of the young kids getting hurt. Seriously.
Why do I bring this up? Because any reviewer of art who puts these types of fears (wholly unjustified in retrospect) ahead of the artistic merits of art reviewed has obviously lost what is required to be a serious movie reviewer. He has become and old-man, a reactionary, a nostalgic fat ass pining for the comfort of the art of his youth.
He is no long relavent to film an any meaningful way.
Shun his worthless opinion at every opportunity.
BTW, this is a general trend of his reviewing for the past serveral years, not my reaction only to the review mentioned above.
I once had some steel tip darts in a carry on bag that I was forced to put in my checked baggage. No shit. I don't know what they think I could have done with those darts. A sewing needle is more dangerous.
This is a complicated question - there are many reasons. When I wrote Emacs back in '73, I was only trying to recreate an editor I was used to that was usurped by a greed corporation. This met with some success and community approval, which drove me to devote more of my time to free software. When I wrote BSD (and all the clones), I personally needed a nice secure networking operating system - little did I know that others would use my OS in Mission Critical enterprises. This was quite a stoke to my ego. At this point, I was beginning to get the hang of the game: write good software - get a natural endorphin high. Like a cloned white lab mouse, I was hooked. During the late '70s and '80s, I turned my attention to a myriad of small projects: GCC, make, awk, sed, vi, MSDos. All of these met with some moderate success, but they lacked the punch of my earlier successes. I needed a bigger score. Then I hit upon it: a unix for the masses! Early in the '90s I began this project which I titled GNU/Linux. Much to my pleasure, GNU/Linux met with huge success. From there, the rest is histrory. I wrote a nice free Web Browser called Mozilla (after my cat Mozzy) which out shone all competitors, I started a Desktop Environment for my various Unix projects which I dubbed 'KDE'. Later, I realized this was a poor name and started a completely different Desktop project called 'GNOME' - by this time I had developed a particular affinity for the letter 'g' (not to mention common $3 crack!). Where do I go from here? Well I have a few projects in the hopper - one is called OS X which is a derivative of my earlier BSD work. There are others that I'd rather save as a surprise (a hint: one contains the initials 'XP'). Hope this helps your interview.
"casing the joint" is not illegal unless you trespass. So passive collection of data (i.e. remote observation) whether via reception of photons (eyeballs) or radio waves (802.11 card) is OK.
Radio waves are photons, too.
HTH
Re:Paraphrasing myself ... Re:There is no justice
on
Harry Potter Wins Hugo
·
· Score: 0
A repetition of the same meaning in different words; needless
repetition of an idea in different words or phrases; a
representation of anything as the cause, condition, or
consequence of itself, as in the following lines:
Your sig is composed of two phrases, 2*b and !2*b, the second is not a repetition of the first. A trusim, perhaps, but not a tautology.
It's unanimous. ATTN: Killustrator developers, please change the name to "veKtor". Also, my legal fees for forum based consensus monitoring are 4000 USD per incident. Thank you.
(Warning, this post is garunteed to generate negative karma, and be moderated to -70 flamebait. But that's OK -- I don't care! Screw you guys, I'm going home.)
This disclaimer + modearation at (+4) = classic reverse-psycology technique - not just for small children anymore.
I don't really understand your comment, but let me explain a bit more.
Adding the piezos to the car will increase the mass of the car, which will increase the gas consumption (i.e. energy requirements) required for acceleration and rolling friction.
My guess is that increased energy (as measure in gas) would be greater than the energy produced by the piezos in the shock. In affect you'd be trading gas for energy at a worse efficiency than could be achieved by just using a larger alternator.
Let me put another way:
You - "I installed these piezos in my shocks that produce X microwatts
Me - "yea but your gas mileage has gone down by Y mpg which is greater than the cost of the electricity produced as measured by Z"
True, long baseline optical interferometry is a possibility. It has been used some on the ground with moderate success. However, you have to do it in real time with optical sensors - you can't very well record the 'signal' (field strength over time) like you can with lower frequence EM. For optical interferometers, the real-time combination is usually done with waveguides or fibers connecting the output of the several telescopes where the path length the light travels over has to be controlled to sub-wavelength accuracy. Difficult, to say the least.
Additionally it is more than likely (attn: NSA, public domain info) that electro-optical based satellites can be tasked to fly in geosynchronous orbits to maintain constant observation without all of the the issues associated with image processing of data obtained at various angles of incidence
The problem is that when you plug the 23,000 mile range of geostationary orbit into the diffraction limit equation you get much much worse resolution than 10cm for any currently conceivable optical aperature size. The fast moving satellites could have their field of regard slewed to produce a short image sequence, perhaps, but the change in angle would be just as evident in a video as it is when you watch a moving car drive by. This change in angle is not evident in the scenes in question in "Enemy of the State".
Not to burst your bubble (do ACs have bubbles? we may never know), but nowhere in my post will you find any claim that the "real-time" part is wrong.
As far as "stand still", I only meant that with respect to the surface of the earth. Perhaps I should have used quotes. What I of course meant by stand-still was geostationary. This hardly needed pointing out, or so I thought. The term geosynchronous (or in all caps, if you prefer, GEOSYNCRONOUS) indicates a satellite with the same rotational period as the earth. A subset of geosynchronous satellites is geostationary satellites which have the additional requirements of circular orbits and locations above the equator. These are the ones that seem to "stand still" with respect to an observer on earth. Of course, they don't even remain in a constant position with respect to the surface of the earth but tend to drift from various perturbabtions.
This is all beside the point - the resolution depicted by the movie is impossible from a geostationary orbit given current technology. The resolution may or may not be acheivable from low-earth orbit, but like I said and you ignored, in the movie, the video feeds were from cameras that appeared to be stationary with respect to the surface of the earth.
IIRC, the real-time imagery shown in that movie seemed to indicate that the spy satellites were hanging stationary over their intended targets, which of course is bogus. Birds that get good resolution fly by *really* fast. Birds that stand still wouldn't be able to resolve anything.
The movie should have been called "Enemy of the Accurate Portrayal of Technology" or "Enemy of Checking Technology in the Script Against Real Capabilites", or perhaps even "Enemy of Employing Anyone Who Has Completed Even a Freshman Level Physics Course."
The funny thing about your rather witty response to my response (btw, if you have to point out what you write is sarcastic, especially after using quotes, you either failed in your attempt, or you should pack up your almighty pen and save it for more worthy audiences) is that you assume I assume the whole country speaks with the accent in question. It's just a lame joke, lighten up.
And I've seen the show you describe a couple times (and a couple other worthwhile shows on the Canadian station that airs around here, too). Thanks though.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I'm talking about. It was my experience that the movie drove more people to philosophical discussion than it drove to fighting. In fact, I know many people who talked about the movie for hours, yet I know of no one who was "looking for a fight" after the movie. I heard about the some kids emulating the fight scenes, but that's it - heresay. So I still think his analysis was way wrong - and your defense is wrong too - Ebert is too old PC to see the art in the movie. One of the ideas explored in the movie - a vivid portrayal of one man's slip into insanity - was completly ignored by Ebert. Face it - he was way off.
Why do I bring this up? Because any reviewer of art who puts these types of fears (wholly unjustified in retrospect) ahead of the artistic merits of art reviewed has obviously lost what is required to be a serious movie reviewer. He has become and old-man, a reactionary, a nostalgic fat ass pining for the comfort of the art of his youth.
He is no long relavent to film an any meaningful way.
Shun his worthless opinion at every opportunity.
BTW, this is a general trend of his reviewing for the past serveral years, not my reaction only to the review mentioned above.
Richard Stallman
Radio waves are photons, too.
HTH
Yeah, ComeOn!!!
From dict.org
Tautology
A repetition of the same meaning in different words; needless
repetition of an idea in different words or phrases; a
representation of anything as the cause, condition, or
consequence of itself, as in the following lines:
Your sig is composed of two phrases, 2*b and !2*b, the second is not a repetition of the first. A trusim, perhaps, but not a tautology.
Trolling slashdot is like shooting druggies at a Grateful Dead concert - just too damn easy.
Judging from some of the trolls and crapflooders, many slashodotters would be in that ballpark on the slavery issue as well.
This disclaimer + modearation at (+4) = classic reverse-psycology technique - not just for small children anymore.
Don't be redundant.
(yes, I'm an american)
No I find it distinctly unsettling
Adding the piezos to the car will increase the mass of the car, which will increase the gas consumption (i.e. energy requirements) required for acceleration and rolling friction.
My guess is that increased energy (as measure in gas) would be greater than the energy produced by the piezos in the shock. In affect you'd be trading gas for energy at a worse efficiency than could be achieved by just using a larger alternator.
Let me put another way:
You - "I installed these piezos in my shocks that produce X microwatts
Me - "yea but your gas mileage has gone down by Y mpg which is greater than the cost of the electricity produced as measured by Z"
Can I be any more vague for you, AC?
Formal Analysys forthcoming...
The problem is that when you plug the 23,000 mile range of geostationary orbit into the diffraction limit equation you get much much worse resolution than 10cm for any currently conceivable optical aperature size. The fast moving satellites could have their field of regard slewed to produce a short image sequence, perhaps, but the change in angle would be just as evident in a video as it is when you watch a moving car drive by. This change in angle is not evident in the scenes in question in "Enemy of the State".
As far as "stand still", I only meant that with respect to the surface of the earth. Perhaps I should have used quotes. What I of course meant by stand-still was geostationary. This hardly needed pointing out, or so I thought. The term geosynchronous (or in all caps, if you prefer, GEOSYNCRONOUS) indicates a satellite with the same rotational period as the earth. A subset of geosynchronous satellites is geostationary satellites which have the additional requirements of circular orbits and locations above the equator. These are the ones that seem to "stand still" with respect to an observer on earth. Of course, they don't even remain in a constant position with respect to the surface of the earth but tend to drift from various perturbabtions.
This is all beside the point - the resolution depicted by the movie is impossible from a geostationary orbit given current technology. The resolution may or may not be acheivable from low-earth orbit, but like I said and you ignored, in the movie, the video feeds were from cameras that appeared to be stationary with respect to the surface of the earth.
HAND
The movie should have been called "Enemy of the Accurate Portrayal of Technology" or "Enemy of Checking Technology in the Script Against Real Capabilites", or perhaps even "Enemy of Employing Anyone Who Has Completed Even a Freshman Level Physics Course."
Otherwise the movie was A-OK
HTH
And I've seen the show you describe a couple times (and a couple other worthwhile shows on the Canadian station that airs around here, too). Thanks though.
This is where you stopped speaking for me.
Not only that, but profit is the difference between revenue and expenses.