Um, it's a bad precedent that companies protect the integrity of their interests through the use of a court of law???
Since when did people lose from that? Would you rather they be restricted to sheer voluntary consent, or to the use of coercive force that is not regulated by the court system?
Exactly what do you want Blizzard to do instead?
Or do you want the customers of Blizzard to suffer from the actions of a few? Are we to have no say in what we want???
Blizzard's interests do not trump the rights of even one man, no matter how much you dislike bots.
The rights of people to get away with breaking the agreement to use someone else's service that they agreed to? To do something that degrades the user experience for all?
most of what you believe about healing and your health is based on the claims of corporations and doctors (who learned what they know from the same corporations) who benefit from your poor health
This is the point when most people should stop listening to you. What horrible slander.
The problem is that The O'Reilly Factor airs on a channel called Fox News.
How is that a problem?
Do you also think it's a problem that some programs on the Cable News Network are not news?
Yes, I do. I also have a problem with the History Channel airing reality shows that have nothing to do with history, the Sci-Fi channel (Sorry, Syfy) running programs with little to no Sci-Fi content, the Discovery Channel airing shows with no scientific content, etc.
Oh yeah, and one of the earliest offenders: MTV no longer playing music.
Republicans call themselves "Conservatives" but want to change everything. Conservative means resistant to change.
Not so much that they want to change everything, but they want to change to "the way things used to be." What they want to conserve are the rules as they existed decades ago.
You might be more interested (and have more success) looking for groups with a higher maturity level rather than a higher age. I'm one of the oldest players in my World of Warcraft guild, but the people tend to be laid back, mature... hell, I look up to the wisdom of a few people over a decade younger than me (having seen more than most in their young lives..).
It's a combination of "The Big Lie" and the Echo Chamber effect. Not only do they have many Big Lies, but they propagate another Big Lie by representing those lies as mainstream thought, and detractors as fringe loonies.
The netbooks are jumping the gun just a little; they're looking forward to a future where all software is downloaded, not distributed on hard media. Like the iPhone does now.
You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.
I would very much worry about the FCC trying to screw up Internet content the same way they screwed up broadcast television. The FCC has a history of looking to expand its powers and influence, and I don't think, if it could get its hooks into the Internet, that it would stop at 'merely' Net Neutrality.
These people have worked hard to get where they are and I do not believe they should have to pay a higher percentage of tax because they are sucessful.
For myself, it comes down to civic duty -- everyone should feel the same amount of "pain" of supporting government. It should be just as much of a hassle, just as much of a burden for the rich as it is for the poor, and $1000 less from a poor person's salary is far far more damaging to them than it is for a rich person.
I had high hopes for the Tea Party movement. I'd hoped they could change the Republican Party, make it a bit more Libertarian, but looking at the 2010 election cycle it's now obvious that the old Republican Party completely conquered and absorbed the Tea Party. There's little difference between the Tea Party of today and the 1990s Republicans.
You'll let your kids watch the government approved violence on TV and youtube and we'll protect them from any and all kinds of human sexuality (except the Disney approved sexualization of teen/tween "stars", of course) AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!
Boy, I miss when Disney was pushing America to accept Annette Funicello as America's next young star. The current crop is somewhat embarrassing.
I've watched Faux News, and I have not seen anything I would call a liberal. Who do you think is a liberal on Fox?
Fox News brings in liberals who couldn't argue themselves out of a paper bag, solely to serve as punching bags for the conservative hosts who are better prepared and have the home turf to control the debate.
My copy of the DVD has that name. Never understood it, just as you said, it has nothing to do with the storyline of the game. It has some of the concepts though, Gaia and such. Now Advent Children, that was based off the game.
I have the sneaking suspicion that the Spirits Within may have started as an offshoot of the Final Fantasy 7 world -- maybe not a direct sequel, but set in the same future world. The end result has little to do with FF7 other than the art design and technology (and unrelated characters named Cid).
Remember that other nations do NOT have the same laws as the US. They have the right to make their own rules. Something that is 100% legal in the US can get you in trouble in another country.
True, but this this has little bearing to getting in trouble in other countries, it's whether you're violating US law when you resell inside the United States.
I disagree. It would be very easy for a government agency to approach a big company and say: "We'd like a backdoor in your software. If you don't add one, or if you tell anyone we asked you to do this, you can say goodbye to any juicy government contracts you may have, as well as any hope of getting said contracts in the future." Somehow, I don't think the company is going to fight it.
And it would be even easier for any one of the dozens of people that would need to be involved to pass this on to various forms of media.
Negotiators are never as subtle as the grandparent's words would have them be. They don't need to -state- that said company's government contracts could be on the line.
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was a good attempt with the latest effects technology, but it has no relation to "Final Fantasy 7." FF7, the Spirits Within is an incorrect title, and the only valid reference I can find to that is an obscure soundtrack from the Final Fantasy 7 game which was given the title "The Spirits Within" a few years before the Final Fantasy movie you describe came out. It's possible given the popularity of the FF7 game that the name was used in early marketing (I wouldn't put it past them!) but I can't find any references to that. I do find a couple sites that mislabeled the movie as Final Fantasy 7, the Spirits Within, even though the product itself doesn't have the words "Final Fantasy 7" anywhere on it.
This is my super-nitpicky post of the day, sorry. >_>
Oh get over yourself. Movies have always been an excuse for visual effects. If all that mattered was plot, storylines would be the end-all of story-telling. That has never, nor will it ever, be the case. Humans have sensory input. We like to use them.
We tend to forget the bad 40-year movies and only remember the good ones.
In 40 years, no one will remember Van Helsing, but we'll still be watching the good movies of the decade.:)
The city explosion effects in ID4 were even bad at the time, and are horrible by today's standards. Even seeing it the first time I cringed at the bad Mandelbrot-based CG explosion, and how it looked nothing like a real explosion. I think it's rather telling that I've never seen that technique used in a movie explosion ever again. Most "explosions" are detonations of real gas and explosives that either exist as-is in a scene or are comped in. Though fire effects simulation packages have gotten better and better...
Granted, many of the effects in the movie WERE good, especially the giant model ships, and the movie really sold the vast scale of the ships and the action in the way that few other action movies have been able to. That's one of the few things I like about Roland Emmerich's movies -- somehow when he guides an effects team, they're able to make big things look big. That sounds obvious and simple, but a lot of effects get that wrong somehow, probably because large objects do not move in the same way that small objects do, just scaled up/slowed down.
I also would have been so much more impressed if the first time I saw that WAS IN THE FUCKING THEATER. I don't even watch television and I've seen that shot a thousand times while in the gym. I have my audiobook in and yep, folding city, tagline Inception. So I don't even know what the movie's about and have had what looks to be an impressive SFX shot completely ruined for me. Great move, assholes.
Absolutely agree. I saw that effects shot many times in trailers shown on TV, then I saw it in the theater and thought "Ooooooh, so -that's- what I was looking at. That was really cool." But it'd lost its impact.
I think the Matrix movies had excellent trailers -- they showed bullet time and a few fight scenes, but nothing of the future world, sentinels, ships, etc, so when the revelations appeared in the movie I was blown away because it was not only cool, but unexpected.
It certainly depends on how the director can pull it off. I've seen long boring takes before. But the only reason the "fleeing from the city in the car" sequence in War of the Worlds maintained tension was because it was a long take.
A few directors can do short takes pretty well -- I think the one and only time I've been wowed by a director's ability to make short cuts work was 2001's Moulin Rouge. Most other times I can't get a sense of what I'm looking at before the perspective changes.
I liked most of the new War of the Worlds -- it certainly has an excellent alien ship unveiling. I could certainly have done without the relationships of Cruise's family, but then again, the old Byron Haskin movie has that useless screecher, Sylvia Van Buren. But boy, the 1953 movie practically invented the disaster movie genre. The ships were incredibly well-designed, the sound effects were well ahead of its time. It's iconic.
Some of the best movie explosions have come because someone needs to demolish a building, a movie production company gets wind of it and thinks "whoa, we could use that," and they blow up an actual building. The Cyberdyne explosion in T2, the destruction of Gotham General in the Dark Knight, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Um, it's a bad precedent that companies protect the integrity of their interests through the use of a court of law???
Since when did people lose from that? Would you rather they be restricted to sheer voluntary consent, or to the use of coercive force that is not regulated by the court system?
Exactly what do you want Blizzard to do instead?
Or do you want the customers of Blizzard to suffer from the actions of a few? Are we to have no say in what we want???
Blizzard's interests do not trump the rights of even one man, no matter how much you dislike bots.
The rights of people to get away with breaking the agreement to use someone else's service that they agreed to? To do something that degrades the user experience for all?
most of what you believe about healing and your health is based on the claims of corporations and doctors (who learned what they know from the same corporations) who benefit from your poor health
This is the point when most people should stop listening to you. What horrible slander.
The problem is that The O'Reilly Factor airs on a channel called Fox News.
How is that a problem?
Do you also think it's a problem that some programs on the Cable News Network are not news?
Yes, I do. I also have a problem with the History Channel airing reality shows that have nothing to do with history, the Sci-Fi channel (Sorry, Syfy) running programs with little to no Sci-Fi content, the Discovery Channel airing shows with no scientific content, etc.
Oh yeah, and one of the earliest offenders: MTV no longer playing music.
Republicans call themselves "Conservatives" but want to change everything. Conservative means resistant to change.
Not so much that they want to change everything, but they want to change to "the way things used to be." What they want to conserve are the rules as they existed decades ago.
You might be more interested (and have more success) looking for groups with a higher maturity level rather than a higher age. I'm one of the oldest players in my World of Warcraft guild, but the people tend to be laid back, mature... hell, I look up to the wisdom of a few people over a decade younger than me (having seen more than most in their young lives..).
It's a combination of "The Big Lie" and the Echo Chamber effect. Not only do they have many Big Lies, but they propagate another Big Lie by representing those lies as mainstream thought, and detractors as fringe loonies.
The netbooks are jumping the gun just a little; they're looking forward to a future where all software is downloaded, not distributed on hard media. Like the iPhone does now.
Unfortunately it doesn't work as well as that. Putting horrible riders on top of very popular legislation has a track record of working.
You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.
I would very much worry about the FCC trying to screw up Internet content the same way they screwed up broadcast television. The FCC has a history of looking to expand its powers and influence, and I don't think, if it could get its hooks into the Internet, that it would stop at 'merely' Net Neutrality.
Pounding a guy in the ass is just getting your rocks off. A reach-around? That would be kindof gay, wouldn't it?
These people have worked hard to get where they are and I do not believe they should have to pay a higher percentage of tax because they are sucessful.
For myself, it comes down to civic duty -- everyone should feel the same amount of "pain" of supporting government. It should be just as much of a hassle, just as much of a burden for the rich as it is for the poor, and $1000 less from a poor person's salary is far far more damaging to them than it is for a rich person.
I had high hopes for the Tea Party movement. I'd hoped they could change the Republican Party, make it a bit more Libertarian, but looking at the 2010 election cycle it's now obvious that the old Republican Party completely conquered and absorbed the Tea Party. There's little difference between the Tea Party of today and the 1990s Republicans.
You'll let your kids watch the government approved violence on TV and youtube and we'll protect them from any and all kinds of human sexuality (except the Disney approved sexualization of teen/tween "stars", of course) AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!
Boy, I miss when Disney was pushing America to accept Annette Funicello as America's next young star. The current crop is somewhat embarrassing.
I've watched Faux News, and I have not seen anything I would call a liberal. Who do you think is a liberal on Fox?
Fox News brings in liberals who couldn't argue themselves out of a paper bag, solely to serve as punching bags for the conservative hosts who are better prepared and have the home turf to control the debate.
My copy of the DVD has that name. Never understood it, just as you said, it has nothing to do with the storyline of the game. It has some of the concepts though, Gaia and such. Now Advent Children, that was based off the game.
I have the sneaking suspicion that the Spirits Within may have started as an offshoot of the Final Fantasy 7 world -- maybe not a direct sequel, but set in the same future world. The end result has little to do with FF7 other than the art design and technology (and unrelated characters named Cid).
Remember that other nations do NOT have the same laws as the US. They have the right to make their own rules. Something that is 100% legal in the US can get you in trouble in another country.
True, but this this has little bearing to getting in trouble in other countries, it's whether you're violating US law when you resell inside the United States.
I disagree. It would be very easy for a government agency to approach a big company and say: "We'd like a backdoor in your software. If you don't add one, or if you tell anyone we asked you to do this, you can say goodbye to any juicy government contracts you may have, as well as any hope of getting said contracts in the future." Somehow, I don't think the company is going to fight it.
And it would be even easier for any one of the dozens of people that would need to be involved to pass this on to various forms of media.
Negotiators are never as subtle as the grandparent's words would have them be. They don't need to -state- that said company's government contracts could be on the line.
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was a good attempt with the latest effects technology, but it has no relation to "Final Fantasy 7." FF7, the Spirits Within is an incorrect title, and the only valid reference I can find to that is an obscure soundtrack from the Final Fantasy 7 game which was given the title "The Spirits Within" a few years before the Final Fantasy movie you describe came out. It's possible given the popularity of the FF7 game that the name was used in early marketing (I wouldn't put it past them!) but I can't find any references to that. I do find a couple sites that mislabeled the movie as Final Fantasy 7, the Spirits Within, even though the product itself doesn't have the words "Final Fantasy 7" anywhere on it.
This is my super-nitpicky post of the day, sorry. >_>
Oh get over yourself. Movies have always been an excuse for visual effects. If all that mattered was plot, storylines would be the end-all of story-telling. That has never, nor will it ever, be the case. Humans have sensory input. We like to use them.
We tend to forget the bad 40-year movies and only remember the good ones.
In 40 years, no one will remember Van Helsing, but we'll still be watching the good movies of the decade. :)
The city explosion effects in ID4 were even bad at the time, and are horrible by today's standards. Even seeing it the first time I cringed at the bad Mandelbrot-based CG explosion, and how it looked nothing like a real explosion. I think it's rather telling that I've never seen that technique used in a movie explosion ever again. Most "explosions" are detonations of real gas and explosives that either exist as-is in a scene or are comped in. Though fire effects simulation packages have gotten better and better...
Granted, many of the effects in the movie WERE good, especially the giant model ships, and the movie really sold the vast scale of the ships and the action in the way that few other action movies have been able to. That's one of the few things I like about Roland Emmerich's movies -- somehow when he guides an effects team, they're able to make big things look big. That sounds obvious and simple, but a lot of effects get that wrong somehow, probably because large objects do not move in the same way that small objects do, just scaled up/slowed down.
I also would have been so much more impressed if the first time I saw that WAS IN THE FUCKING THEATER. I don't even watch television and I've seen that shot a thousand times while in the gym. I have my audiobook in and yep, folding city, tagline Inception. So I don't even know what the movie's about and have had what looks to be an impressive SFX shot completely ruined for me. Great move, assholes.
Absolutely agree. I saw that effects shot many times in trailers shown on TV, then I saw it in the theater and thought "Ooooooh, so -that's- what I was looking at. That was really cool." But it'd lost its impact.
I think the Matrix movies had excellent trailers -- they showed bullet time and a few fight scenes, but nothing of the future world, sentinels, ships, etc, so when the revelations appeared in the movie I was blown away because it was not only cool, but unexpected.
It certainly depends on how the director can pull it off. I've seen long boring takes before. But the only reason the "fleeing from the city in the car" sequence in War of the Worlds maintained tension was because it was a long take.
A few directors can do short takes pretty well -- I think the one and only time I've been wowed by a director's ability to make short cuts work was 2001's Moulin Rouge. Most other times I can't get a sense of what I'm looking at before the perspective changes.
BS! Avatar is Pocahontas wrapped in CG eyecandy.
EVERY movie sounds like shit and unoriginal when you simply it down to one sentence.
I liked most of the new War of the Worlds -- it certainly has an excellent alien ship unveiling. I could certainly have done without the relationships of Cruise's family, but then again, the old Byron Haskin movie has that useless screecher, Sylvia Van Buren. But boy, the 1953 movie practically invented the disaster movie genre. The ships were incredibly well-designed, the sound effects were well ahead of its time. It's iconic.
Some of the best movie explosions have come because someone needs to demolish a building, a movie production company gets wind of it and thinks "whoa, we could use that," and they blow up an actual building. The Cyberdyne explosion in T2, the destruction of Gotham General in the Dark Knight, etc...