Is there any way we can look through a telescope from Earth and see the flag on the moon?
Flag on the moon. How did it get there? Secret data. Pictures of the Moon. Secret Data, never before outside the Kremlin. Manâ(TM)s first rocket to the Moon.
Yes, without question. Ledger's Joker actually acts legitimately crazy, complete with the tongue thing. You can tell that he is rational in his own mind, and not trying to be funny, as Nickilson's Joker tried to be.
You really have to see it to understand what I mean. It really is the best villain I've seen.
You have to bear in mind the very different sensibilities of the two films, though...
I have not seen the new film and intend to give it a chance - I did like "Begins" - but I feel like they may have reached the point where they've begun to take the character too seriously... I don't think "The Joker" is really a character that works well cast in a light like that - the character is supposed to be over-the-top, the whole concept of him is basically ridiculous, but that's the whole point. But now I guess he's John Wayne Gacy crossed with Hannibal Lecter? I'm not yet convinced that The Joker benefits from this treatment - or that a real portrayal of a psychotic benefits from being fitted into the Joker mould...
What I appreciate about Nicholson's Joker (or Tim Burton's Joker, depending on your perspective) was the whole "artist" angle. It's not just the face that made him "The Joker" - he decided for himself to create the ridiculous persona, as a kind of murderous performance art.
Indeed, the lack of dialogue is the single biggest reason I'm not going to see the movie until I, at the very least, pirate it to see if it's any good: stories without dialogue don't work. Period. There's a reason why we quit making silent movies, and it really disappointed me that Pixar is taking a step backward in that regard.
2001: A Space Odyssey is 141 minutes long and has 28 minutes of dialog. And no massive explosions, gunfights, etc. either.
That "story without dialog didn't work"? Riiiiiiiight.
Well, you have to remember that while you and I may hold 2001 in high regard, a lot of people don't... So this may not be the best example.
Also, Pixar has gotten so good at what they do that they don't even need words to tell a story. The first 45 minutes of the movie has pretty much ZERO dialogue with the exception of BnL ads for background. Oh, also a word or two (literally) from the robots.
Y'know, I haven't seen the movie, but I really find this to be impossible. Indeed, the lack of dialogue is the single biggest reason I'm not going to see the movie until I, at the very least, pirate it to see if it's any good: stories without dialogue don't work. Period. There's a reason why we quit making silent movies, and it really disappointed me that Pixar is taking a step backward in that regard.
Have you ever seen the old Aeon Flux shorts? Not the TV series, with its sometimes-fun, sometimes-cheesy dialogue laced heavy with sexual innuendo, but the original shorts that preceded that... I've found these to be great examples of the advantage of story-telling without dialogue. Conversely, the TV series is a good example of how dialogue isn't necessarily an improvement. Or, if you've ever played the game "Out of this World" (AKA "Another World") - very nice use of no-dialogue.
Basically, dialogue is a very direct means of telling the story, while a movie without dialogue is more illustrative. It's like instead of the story being told to you, it's demonstrated. If it's done right it can be very effective.
Telling a story with dialogue can be easier (not necessarily, though - you have to be good at dialogue, too) - one of the main limitations of story-telling without dialogue IMO is that anything you want to relate has to happen right there in front of the viewer. With dialogue a character could say, "oh you remember that thing we did last week? Well, I'm pissed at you because of it." Without dialogue you have to show not only that event, but also the reaction to it that makes that character angry.
A story without dialogue can't really be too complex, of course - but the elements of Wall-E that are dialogue-free are mostly the establishment of Wall-E and Eve themselves and their little love story. Trust me, it comes through quite nicely. I think love is something that is better demonstrated than verbalized anyway.
I did not say Gmail was OSS. I said "Two years of beta in the OSS community isn't unheard of." I'd edit to change the wording, but I can't.
I think you're right, sometime in the future GMail may end up open-source like all major google products such as search and AdSense. If not in the future then maybe in an alternate universe, where evil doesn't exist.
Does logic normally rebound off your head like that?
He was just saying that gmail wouldn't be the only thing to be in beta for a long time. There are examples of it in other software - among other things, certain open-source packages.
Well, first off, the basic principle to consider here is that for the best possible test of the system you want the stuff you test with to be as close to the real deal as possible. Ideally a person eating the astronaut food, living in free-fall - but that would be too expensive - regular old terrestrial human piss is probably good enough.
Now, consider the alternatives you've suggested and how they compare on a practical level and in terms of cost to NASA's solution...
Synthetic: there's the difficulty and cost of producing it in the first place, as well as the difficulty of ensuring that it really is accurate enough for the test. Wasted effort, essentially, since the real thing can be got for free and is pretty certain to be close enough to what'll be produced in space...
Likewise for animal urine - there's the cost of keeping the animals and collecting the specimens - plus of establishing that the test really is testing what you want to test - whether the system is appropriate for human use.
Comparatively, human piss is already exactly what you want to test the system with - maybe it'll be a bit different due to the different conditions, but you know it's basically the same stuff. And the cost of getting it is very small - all you need is a little cooperation from the staff.
So for more money you can test in a way that may or may not be an adequate simulation of the conditions under which the spacecraft toilet will be used. So what's the point?
Because it's not just about the toilet, but what happens to the waste after that. They need to extract and reuse the water...
Besides which - if you're developing a system responsible for the handling, recycling, or disposal of human urine, the best thing to test it with is human urine. They're not going to be using this thing to dispose of canola oil, that's not what it's for.
As it turns out, one of the original text adventures ("Adventure", IIRC) was written in Cambridge, England, so I got to be wrong twice in one discussion.
The original text adventure was written by Will Crowther, while working at BBN in Cambridge, MA, USA.
<shrug> well, I can't remember what bit of adventure game transpired in Cambridge, England, then...
I think you should call him "Tom Riddle" and then arrange the remaining letters from "Lord Voldemort" (v, o, o, l, r) into something vaguely resembling a name...
Oh, wait, that's not a good selection of letters... and there's not an I in there at all. let's make it "I am Lord Voldemort".
So... I guess that would make him Tom Voolmar Riddle!
"The way to fix this is to mandate that hardware manufacturers publish detailed specifications based upon which FLOSS drivers can be written." Why? Why should tell a hardware manufacture what they can and not do?
Because if I am their customer, then I want them to act in a way that serves my interests. That is part of what I want for my money. I understand that I can't expect full indulgence from every hardware manufacturer - but I want them to understand, when I buy a piece of hardware I also want to have all the information necessary to make use of it. That is the message I want to send.
If you don't want to send a similar message, that's your business. I won't tell you you should think otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
You just violated my patents on patent-ing invalidation of....
...whatever it is the poem was about!
Is there any way we can look through a telescope from Earth and see the flag on the moon?
Flag on the moon. How did it get there? Secret data. Pictures of the Moon. Secret Data, never before outside the Kremlin. Manâ(TM)s first rocket to the Moon.
People voting against Bush and Obama
Oh, I hadn't realized Obama had chosen his running mate...
Horseshit.
it does cost 90p(about US$90).
I hate it when I oversleep and the entire US economy collapses...
So do we! We were counting on you to hold the malaise at bay, but, no... you had to get your beauty rest instead...
Oh noes, I've no mod points!
I'd have modded you informative!
Not to worry, I have some mod points, I'll mod him up on your behalf, as soon as I'm done posting this response!
What? Oh, shit...
He gave two completely conflicting stories of his origin. I'd say that counts as a lie.
I'm sure he'd plead the Obi Wan defense on that one: "What I said was true, from a certain point of view." :D
Yes, without question. Ledger's Joker actually acts legitimately crazy, complete with the tongue thing. You can tell that he is rational in his own mind, and not trying to be funny, as Nickilson's Joker tried to be.
You really have to see it to understand what I mean. It really is the best villain I've seen.
You have to bear in mind the very different sensibilities of the two films, though...
I have not seen the new film and intend to give it a chance - I did like "Begins" - but I feel like they may have reached the point where they've begun to take the character too seriously... I don't think "The Joker" is really a character that works well cast in a light like that - the character is supposed to be over-the-top, the whole concept of him is basically ridiculous, but that's the whole point. But now I guess he's John Wayne Gacy crossed with Hannibal Lecter? I'm not yet convinced that The Joker benefits from this treatment - or that a real portrayal of a psychotic benefits from being fitted into the Joker mould...
What I appreciate about Nicholson's Joker (or Tim Burton's Joker, depending on your perspective) was the whole "artist" angle. It's not just the face that made him "The Joker" - he decided for himself to create the ridiculous persona, as a kind of murderous performance art.
'Course, Mark Hamill was really the best Joker. :D
"Eventually" in this case means after a couple months of training presented in a brief montage...
Seemed a bit wrong, but in retrospect I guess that's all Luke Skywalker got, too...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/17/1919236
Deja vu all over again.
--A2K
Was it the same cat??!?
you can't blow someone for spray painting
Obviously the word "away" was supposed to be in there somewhere ;)
Ah, OK...
"You can't blow someone for spray painting away"
There, all better.
Linux is on the desktop. What more do we need?
Don't know what you're talking about. Linux has been on my desktop since 1996...
2001: A Space Odyssey is 141 minutes long and has 28 minutes of dialog. And no massive explosions, gunfights, etc. either.
That "story without dialog didn't work"? Riiiiiiiight.
Well, you have to remember that while you and I may hold 2001 in high regard, a lot of people don't... So this may not be the best example.
Also, Pixar has gotten so good at what they do that they don't even need words to tell a story. The first 45 minutes of the movie has pretty much ZERO dialogue with the exception of BnL ads for background. Oh, also a word or two (literally) from the robots.
Y'know, I haven't seen the movie, but I really find this to be impossible. Indeed, the lack of dialogue is the single biggest reason I'm not going to see the movie until I, at the very least, pirate it to see if it's any good: stories without dialogue don't work. Period. There's a reason why we quit making silent movies, and it really disappointed me that Pixar is taking a step backward in that regard.
Have you ever seen the old Aeon Flux shorts? Not the TV series, with its sometimes-fun, sometimes-cheesy dialogue laced heavy with sexual innuendo, but the original shorts that preceded that... I've found these to be great examples of the advantage of story-telling without dialogue. Conversely, the TV series is a good example of how dialogue isn't necessarily an improvement. Or, if you've ever played the game "Out of this World" (AKA "Another World") - very nice use of no-dialogue.
Basically, dialogue is a very direct means of telling the story, while a movie without dialogue is more illustrative. It's like instead of the story being told to you, it's demonstrated. If it's done right it can be very effective.
Telling a story with dialogue can be easier (not necessarily, though - you have to be good at dialogue, too) - one of the main limitations of story-telling without dialogue IMO is that anything you want to relate has to happen right there in front of the viewer. With dialogue a character could say, "oh you remember that thing we did last week? Well, I'm pissed at you because of it." Without dialogue you have to show not only that event, but also the reaction to it that makes that character angry.
A story without dialogue can't really be too complex, of course - but the elements of Wall-E that are dialogue-free are mostly the establishment of Wall-E and Eve themselves and their little love story. Trust me, it comes through quite nicely. I think love is something that is better demonstrated than verbalized anyway.
I did not say Gmail was OSS. I said "Two years of beta in the OSS community isn't unheard of." I'd edit to change the wording, but I can't.
I think you're right, sometime in the future GMail may end up open-source like all major google products such as search and AdSense. If not in the future then maybe in an alternate universe, where evil doesn't exist.
Does logic normally rebound off your head like that?
He was just saying that gmail wouldn't be the only thing to be in beta for a long time. There are examples of it in other software - among other things, certain open-source packages.
Am I gonna get a well-deserved "whoosh" for this reply?
Don't worry, there's not sufficient atmosphere in space to make a 'whoosh". And even if there were, there's no medium to carry it.
Or...
If a joke flies through space, and there's nobody there to hear it, it still doesn't make a sound.
Heh, good one...
'Course, when they dramatize the events for TV or movies, they'll have that "whoosh" sound then, even if it doesn't make sense...
Sign in NASA cafeteria:
Due to a mixup in Urology, orange juice will not be served this morning.
There's really no mistaking orange juice for urine...
Apple juice might serve the joke better, I think?
Is that per person? That's a lot..
Why can't they just use animal urine or synthetic urine?
-- :/
Wi-Fizzle Research..yeah it's a lame domain name
Well, first off, the basic principle to consider here is that for the best possible test of the system you want the stuff you test with to be as close to the real deal as possible. Ideally a person eating the astronaut food, living in free-fall - but that would be too expensive - regular old terrestrial human piss is probably good enough.
Now, consider the alternatives you've suggested and how they compare on a practical level and in terms of cost to NASA's solution...
Synthetic: there's the difficulty and cost of producing it in the first place, as well as the difficulty of ensuring that it really is accurate enough for the test. Wasted effort, essentially, since the real thing can be got for free and is pretty certain to be close enough to what'll be produced in space...
Likewise for animal urine - there's the cost of keeping the animals and collecting the specimens - plus of establishing that the test really is testing what you want to test - whether the system is appropriate for human use.
Comparatively, human piss is already exactly what you want to test the system with - maybe it'll be a bit different due to the different conditions, but you know it's basically the same stuff. And the cost of getting it is very small - all you need is a little cooperation from the staff.
So for more money you can test in a way that may or may not be an adequate simulation of the conditions under which the spacecraft toilet will be used. So what's the point?
Because it's not just about the toilet, but what happens to the waste after that. They need to extract and reuse the water...
Besides which - if you're developing a system responsible for the handling, recycling, or disposal of human urine, the best thing to test it with is human urine. They're not going to be using this thing to dispose of canola oil, that's not what it's for.
In fact, this is all a part of NASA's effort to develop the most intensive watersports programs ever conceived...
The original text
adventure was written by Will Crowther, while working at BBN in Cambridge, MA, USA.
<shrug> well, I can't remember what bit of adventure game transpired in Cambridge, England, then...
_I_ _Really_ _hate_ reading Linus' _email_ with all _his_ _underlining_ for emphasis!!!_-_-_-_ _REALLY_!
I hate signatures...
Grouchy Smurf, is that you?
One of the others left a present for you...
I think you should call him "Tom Riddle" and then arrange the remaining letters from "Lord Voldemort" (v, o, o, l, r) into something vaguely resembling a name...
Oh, wait, that's not a good selection of letters... and there's not an I in there at all. let's make it "I am Lord Voldemort".
So... I guess that would make him Tom Voolmar Riddle!
What? No 26 'In Popular Culture' ?
In the fictional world of Buffy the Fictional Vampire Slayer, there are 26 letters in the alphabet.
In the fictional world of Star Trek, the characters play "poker" with a deck of cards having 26 cards in each pair of suits.
In the original Pokemon games, 26 was the number of Raichu, the evolved form of Pikachu.
"The way to fix this is to mandate that hardware manufacturers publish detailed specifications based upon which FLOSS drivers can be written."
Why?
Why should tell a hardware manufacture what they can and not do?
Because if I am their customer, then I want them to act in a way that serves my interests. That is part of what I want for my money. I understand that I can't expect full indulgence from every hardware manufacturer - but I want them to understand, when I buy a piece of hardware I also want to have all the information necessary to make use of it. That is the message I want to send.
If you don't want to send a similar message, that's your business. I won't tell you you should think otherwise.