Despite this thread being conducted with typical/., unrelated comments, I actually thought this was a great book review. I know this book has been a big help for my husband with his work and I'm glad to see there is a review of it for the/. crowd, so maybe it can be of similar assistance for others.
This movie went along with the plot of the book...unlike the original "Planet of the Apes." In the book, Taylor lands on ANOTHER planet, and in the end goes BACK to Earth where he is met by gorillas.
You know, I always attributed the curtain moving to wind currents. Like if you're on a freeway in a small car, and you drive next to a big truck, you start to get sucked towards it. Wind streams (or something). I didn't pay too much attention in physical science class to remember important jargon, obviously, but that was my hypothesis. I read the article on coffee stains a long time ago.
Re:Are there any meteorologist nerds here?
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
This is exactly what I mentioned earlier today!! Someone else mentioned that in 2000 years, the world changed pretty quickly. In comparison to the last 2000 years in which not a lot has happened, ecologically speaking, it seems almost inconcievable. So that was an unresearched add to the story.
I always wondered what use I'd get out of my Physical Science class (critiquing movies..who knew).
My Thesis, w/no grammatical errors
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 2
I am very split on this movie in a few areas:
1)I also was expecting an Artificial Intelligence movie. The theme of "love" was a perverted twist to the plot. Instead of actually wanting a mecha who *could* love, we are bombarded with pictures of dead children for whom these mecha's will be replacing. I will not credit Kubrick or Spielberg for this, but it certainly seems Kubrick-ish; humanity is so overwrought with its own desire to love/be loved that it creates the perfect robot to fulfill the needs: Nanny/Caretaker, Perfect Enamourous Lover, Perfect Adoring Child. Thus so, I found it perfect that the "Flesh Fair" would exist. It is important (to me) that the opposition be shown in stories, and the "Flesh Fair" was extreme enough to get across a few points. Firstly, that not everyone enjoys mechas; Secondly, they are willing to destroy them just as long as no pleas emerge from the mecha. If the darn thing gets "too" human, then what distinguishes it from humanity, but only by its hardware (or other fruity ideas)? Thirdly, when David smashes "David," I was pleased. It is extreme enough to get across the point that a robot can snap and destroy even other mechas. This, also, is a very human trait; however, I saw it as necessary in the task given to David. He was programmed to "love." His mother told him he was "unique" and "one of a kind." He saw another of his kind, which would undoubtedly alter the "unique" love his mother has for him, and therefore this obstacle must be removed. Perhaps this was too extreme, but I thought it was perfect.
2) I thought it was a pretty good movie. I'd like to buy it and analyze the heck out of it someday. Of course there are "Frankenstein" references, which I was very happy to read in other Reply's. I thought it was interesting that there is no middle ground for creating aritficial life: In "Frankenstein", the Dr. created his monster and deserted him unloved and uneducated. In "A.I.," David was left unloved and uneducated, but with a mission. The Monster also had a mission, but it was one of his own free will (work with me here), to kill Frankenstein's family. Contrarily, David only desired to be loved. Let me change that: David was only programmed to be loved, and he failed. He waited 2000 years (and didn't know it?!) to fulfill this task. Do I think he really loved his mother? NO. NONONO. That was his planned mission, and although I see Dr.whatshisface's point that "no other robot has made decisions on its own," and David was again "unique and one of a kind," I find it hard to believe that something programmed could somehow break away and *actually* love. This, my friends, is impossible, but good for a Sci-Fi movie.
3) The Ending: Ohmygosh. Ok, I thought David "became a real boy" when he gave up his desire to live and fell off the building. I also thought that this was a good marker for the end. But a prophecy by Whatta-ya-know-Joe earlier in the film prevented the credits from rolling: "in the end, all that will be left...is US." So, 2000 years later, apparently "the end," robots have taken over the earth, and some archeologists have found David and have a party. The ending was a closer for a few things, however lame it was that David "went where dreams are made": 1. He found the Blue Fairy and became a real boy, 2. He fulfilled his programming needs, and was loved by his mother, 3. The world was taken over by freaky robots, 4. We entered an unexpected ice age, but instead of the waters receding back to the poles, it just stayed in New York. I ultimately found that David "slept" to be a silly ending. He never desired to sleep before, so this is an unfounded conclusion to David's quasi-epic. Water won't destroy him (but spinich will..), time won't kill him...how exactly does David go?...
Good Movie? Bad Movie? I say "interesting, but more Kubrick would have been better." It was a little too fuzzy for a Sci-Fi. Reminds me of another fuzzy Sci-Fi movie..."E.T." Hmmmmm....
I work in an Art Gallery, and we have "Fine Art and Design" shows. Computer generated art is art, but it's not Fine Art. It's Design. Fine Art falls under: a.Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility. b.Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Computer generated art is still veryvery new to the Art community. Although you may bitch and moan about not being appreciated as a Fine Artist, potters get the same predjudice, as well as drawers. Is drawing really Art? Or is it just sketches? It is Art, but the Art community is full of snobs, and doesn't consider drawing as finely tuned an artform to consider. Pottery/Ceramics have the same problems, because some pottery can be used (vases/cups/bowls), but the majority of pottery is for the sole purpose of being Art. But because you can use pottery, the Art community considers them more "crafts," and not Fine Art.
What you are complaining about is basic Artist bitching. You will never be appreciated as much as you want, and the schools are obviously in the wrong (Artists are clearly always right). If it bugs you so much, I advise you make your own gallery show. That's what I've done. There's nothing the Art community loves more than bitchy rebel Artists. The question of Fine Art is futile. In the Muses, painting isn't even mentioned, and yet these days we consider painting the only Art. Just have patience.
Cheers,
Tamr
Shh. If I could find every person who complained about spelling, I'd have no time to do anything else. I'm an English major, and although MINOR spelling and grammar errors pop up, it's NOT A BIG DEAL. Calm down. If they freak you out so much, spell check them and send them back. Do something about it, and stop complaining. Silly boy.
Love,
tamr
The only website I've had to use Passport with was creating an account with SanJose Mercury News (.com) so I could check the comics. I have emailed SJMerc a few times asking why they use Passport, but I send most of my "insightful" letters into the void in vain. I know NY Times makes you have an account with them, but not with Passport. So SJMerc is weird. Even CNN.com doesn't use Passport.
(personally)I think Passport is silly. But I think a few other things are rather silly, too. From how I see it, using a third party for passwords/&c. is like hiring a guy to wash your windows for you instead of the button on your car; it *might* be more efficient, but redundant and frivolous.
Anyway...that's my view.
Sinerely,
Tamarah
Slashdot Mirror
Despite this thread being conducted with typical /., unrelated comments, I actually thought this was a great book review. I know this book has been a big help for my husband with his work and I'm glad to see there is a review of it for the /. crowd, so maybe it can be of similar assistance for others.
Enlightenment is by far the best wm out there! It's functional and beautiful...which is a combination no one else has. I love E!!!
A camera is all good and well, but wouldn't there be a problem with lighting?
This movie went along with the plot of the book...unlike the original "Planet of the Apes." In the book, Taylor lands on ANOTHER planet, and in the end goes BACK to Earth where he is met by gorillas.
Warf was the main Gorilla...so it's funny you think gorillas and klingons sound the same. Check the credits... :)
You know, I always attributed the curtain moving to wind currents. Like if you're on a freeway in a small car, and you drive next to a big truck, you start to get sucked towards it. Wind streams (or something). I didn't pay too much attention in physical science class to remember important jargon, obviously, but that was my hypothesis. I read the article on coffee stains a long time ago.
This is exactly what I mentioned earlier today!! Someone else mentioned that in 2000 years, the world changed pretty quickly. In comparison to the last 2000 years in which not a lot has happened, ecologically speaking, it seems almost inconcievable. So that was an unresearched add to the story. I always wondered what use I'd get out of my Physical Science class (critiquing movies..who knew).
I am very split on this movie in a few areas: 1)I also was expecting an Artificial Intelligence movie. The theme of "love" was a perverted twist to the plot. Instead of actually wanting a mecha who *could* love, we are bombarded with pictures of dead children for whom these mecha's will be replacing. I will not credit Kubrick or Spielberg for this, but it certainly seems Kubrick-ish; humanity is so overwrought with its own desire to love/be loved that it creates the perfect robot to fulfill the needs: Nanny/Caretaker, Perfect Enamourous Lover, Perfect Adoring Child. Thus so, I found it perfect that the "Flesh Fair" would exist. It is important (to me) that the opposition be shown in stories, and the "Flesh Fair" was extreme enough to get across a few points. Firstly, that not everyone enjoys mechas; Secondly, they are willing to destroy them just as long as no pleas emerge from the mecha. If the darn thing gets "too" human, then what distinguishes it from humanity, but only by its hardware (or other fruity ideas)? Thirdly, when David smashes "David," I was pleased. It is extreme enough to get across the point that a robot can snap and destroy even other mechas. This, also, is a very human trait; however, I saw it as necessary in the task given to David. He was programmed to "love." His mother told him he was "unique" and "one of a kind." He saw another of his kind, which would undoubtedly alter the "unique" love his mother has for him, and therefore this obstacle must be removed. Perhaps this was too extreme, but I thought it was perfect. 2) I thought it was a pretty good movie. I'd like to buy it and analyze the heck out of it someday. Of course there are "Frankenstein" references, which I was very happy to read in other Reply's. I thought it was interesting that there is no middle ground for creating aritficial life: In "Frankenstein", the Dr. created his monster and deserted him unloved and uneducated. In "A.I.," David was left unloved and uneducated, but with a mission. The Monster also had a mission, but it was one of his own free will (work with me here), to kill Frankenstein's family. Contrarily, David only desired to be loved. Let me change that: David was only programmed to be loved, and he failed. He waited 2000 years (and didn't know it?!) to fulfill this task. Do I think he really loved his mother? NO. NONONO. That was his planned mission, and although I see Dr.whatshisface's point that "no other robot has made decisions on its own," and David was again "unique and one of a kind," I find it hard to believe that something programmed could somehow break away and *actually* love. This, my friends, is impossible, but good for a Sci-Fi movie. 3) The Ending: Ohmygosh. Ok, I thought David "became a real boy" when he gave up his desire to live and fell off the building. I also thought that this was a good marker for the end. But a prophecy by Whatta-ya-know-Joe earlier in the film prevented the credits from rolling: "in the end, all that will be left...is US." So, 2000 years later, apparently "the end," robots have taken over the earth, and some archeologists have found David and have a party. The ending was a closer for a few things, however lame it was that David "went where dreams are made": 1. He found the Blue Fairy and became a real boy, 2. He fulfilled his programming needs, and was loved by his mother, 3. The world was taken over by freaky robots, 4. We entered an unexpected ice age, but instead of the waters receding back to the poles, it just stayed in New York. I ultimately found that David "slept" to be a silly ending. He never desired to sleep before, so this is an unfounded conclusion to David's quasi-epic. Water won't destroy him (but spinich will..), time won't kill him...how exactly does David go? ...
Good Movie? Bad Movie? I say "interesting, but more Kubrick would have been better." It was a little too fuzzy for a Sci-Fi. Reminds me of another fuzzy Sci-Fi movie..."E.T." Hmmmmm....
I work in an Art Gallery, and we have "Fine Art and Design" shows. Computer generated art is art, but it's not Fine Art. It's Design. Fine Art falls under: a.Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility. b.Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Computer generated art is still veryvery new to the Art community. Although you may bitch and moan about not being appreciated as a Fine Artist, potters get the same predjudice, as well as drawers. Is drawing really Art? Or is it just sketches? It is Art, but the Art community is full of snobs, and doesn't consider drawing as finely tuned an artform to consider. Pottery/Ceramics have the same problems, because some pottery can be used (vases/cups/bowls), but the majority of pottery is for the sole purpose of being Art. But because you can use pottery, the Art community considers them more "crafts," and not Fine Art. What you are complaining about is basic Artist bitching. You will never be appreciated as much as you want, and the schools are obviously in the wrong (Artists are clearly always right). If it bugs you so much, I advise you make your own gallery show. That's what I've done. There's nothing the Art community loves more than bitchy rebel Artists. The question of Fine Art is futile. In the Muses, painting isn't even mentioned, and yet these days we consider painting the only Art. Just have patience. Cheers, Tamr
Shh. If I could find every person who complained about spelling, I'd have no time to do anything else. I'm an English major, and although MINOR spelling and grammar errors pop up, it's NOT A BIG DEAL. Calm down. If they freak you out so much, spell check them and send them back. Do something about it, and stop complaining. Silly boy. Love, tamr
The only website I've had to use Passport with was creating an account with SanJose Mercury News (.com) so I could check the comics. I have emailed SJMerc a few times asking why they use Passport, but I send most of my "insightful" letters into the void in vain. I know NY Times makes you have an account with them, but not with Passport. So SJMerc is weird. Even CNN.com doesn't use Passport. (personally)I think Passport is silly. But I think a few other things are rather silly, too. From how I see it, using a third party for passwords/&c. is like hiring a guy to wash your windows for you instead of the button on your car; it *might* be more efficient, but redundant and frivolous. Anyway...that's my view. Sinerely, Tamarah