Actually, the Olympics are only 16 days long (8/13-8/29), and with 7 channels broadcasting 24 hrs/day, that's 2688 hrs (less probably, because the opening ceremony doesn't start at midnight, nor does the closing ceremony end at midnight, and they don't directly connect with events). Giving over nearly 1/2 of their airtime on all their station to the Olympics sounds emminently reasonable to me.
I agree that the exclusive licenses suck, but that's an independent issue from whether NBC is doing a good job.
Actually, most of what I've read suggests that this danger is generally overblown. As long as it is done cautiously, there's no reason why kids can't safely train with weights
I can only assume the article contains a mistake since it claims 57.3 percent revenue growth for linux-based servers over the first quarter which means "in three months"
When they say things like this, they usually mean "relative to the first quarter of last year." So if all four quarters show a 50% rate of growth, the growth rate for the year would be 50%, not over 400% (1.5^4-1). They do things this way because the season can make a big difference in puchases, and so they don't want to muddle things by comparing different months or different quarters. The same thing happens for big tetail chains (Walgreens generally reports sales growth on the order of 14% each month, but they mean relative to the same month last year, not the month immediately prior).
But broiling is the opposite of grilling. Broiling has the meat under the heat source, while the grill has the heat underneath. So what's your word for grilling?
On Japanese internment camps: I, for one, learned about them in grade school. Maybe I had a better education than most, or maybe it's just that I'm from California where the anti-Japanese hysteria was based. However, even Die Hard has a line where it's mentioned that Mr. Nakatomi spent time in an interment camp, and it's hard to get any more mainstream than Die Hard. I don't think the problem is that the history is glazed over, it's that people just don't care, they don't feel it's relevant to their lives. So someone watching Die Hard might hear a reference to Japanese internment camps, but he doesn't care, so his brain discards it and five minutes later, all he remembers is "yippie-kay-ay motherfucker."
Oh, and the field of predicting the future based on the past is called "economics." No, it doesn't work very well yet, but we're working on it (hell, economists managed to predict 8 of the last 3 recessions...)
Re:*Disney* came out ahead when they dumped Pixar
on
Welcome To Planet Pixar
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What you're saying is, Pixar gave Disney two options: give Pixar the rights to its old movies, or Pixar will not renew its contract. Disney chose the better of the two options.
That's not quite the same as saying that Disney comes out ahead. By letting Pixar go, Disney doesn't GAIN anything they weren't already entitled to under the old contract. But, as you point out, they're not losing anything either. No one's denying that the old contract was absurdly lucrative for Disney. In retrospect, Pixar gave up too much. But of course no one knew that at the time, who could have predicted that CG films could draw in that kind of money?
Anyway, my only point is that you're saying that Disney is somehow "winning" by severing ties with Pixar. They're not. They're simply keeping their winnings from the negotiations several years ago.
The point I was trying to make is that the data the computer would presumably be using to determine distance is rate of movement. As the camera pans, close objects move quickly while distant objects move slowly. But the cars are also moving. The cars moving in the direction of the pan would be placed too far away, and the cars moving in the opposite direction would be too close.
Look, even including motion, there's simply not enough data there. Take this as an example: in Lord of the Rings, forced perspective was used for scale issues, so an actor playing a hobbit might actually be far away in the distance relative to an actor playing an elf, but camera positioning would make it appear that they were side by side. No amount of clever software is going to be able to determine where the hobbit is relative to the human, because the filmmakers have intentionally stripped out that data. Even if the software could figure it out, what would the "correct" answer be?
Here's another example: take a shot where the camera is fixed inside a room. Two people are talking. There is essentially no motion, where is the data for relative positions going to come from? Would the film simply revert to 2D for that scene? If the computer were able to determine distance for a person relative to the wall behind him, but were unable to determine that a painting on the wall sticks out, would the painting appear to be a flat decoration, like in Wolfenstein 3D? Am I the only one who thinks that'd be completely distracting?
It's still not going to work for a lot of things. Suppose you're panning sideways along an interstate. How does the computer know that the cars are moving, while the trees in the distance are not?
Why not put it the other way around? If the technology is available, why NOT have it in 3D? As someone else said, the movies shot specifically for 3D tend to use it as a gimmick, and it becomes distracting. If it can be done in a seamless fashion though, why would one not make all movies 3D?
There are a number of limitations for 3D technology as it stands, aside from having to wear goofy glasses. Where you sit will significantly affect how the movie looks, and so directors are restricted to a fairly narrow set of shots that actually look right. This is why 3D never really took off in the past. If one could develop a technology that looks right though, why not use it?
If this is being controlled with Windows, there's the Accessiblity setting "MouseKeys" that lets you control the cursor with the num-pad. I assume Linux must have something similar.
This chart gives a listing on the various LD numbers. The two notes on adult humans: lowest recorded lethal oral dose was 192 g/kg, and the lowest recoreded lethal IV dose was 57 mg/kg.
The question is whether $15/barrel is operating expense or if it includes depreciation of equipment as well. If the latter, then I can certainly see it being useful, as oil prices only occasionally dip below $15/barrel, and presumably he's right that costs will fall somewhat as the technology matures. If the former, then the operation might be ridiculously impractical: the plant cost is clearly well above $10 million, and at 500 barrels per day, a $20 million plant cost depreciated over 20 years adds almost $5.50/barrel.
As you say, we'll just have to wait and see I guess.
Dude, mass transit vehicles still generally need oil. High fuel prices not infrequently cause public transit rate hikes. Bikes are simply not a viable alternative for most transit needs.
since the plants make money they'd probably be built anyway
Do they? There's no mention in the article of what production costs are. Maybe they're making money at $30 a barrel, but will they still be making money if the price falls back to $12? Also, it mentions that they're making "crude oil no. 4," and I have no idea what that means. I assume it's some categorization for light/heavy, and high/low sulfur, but a quick google search didn't turn up anything.
In response to my sibling post by an AC about demand being 20 million barrels a day, it seems to me that if we can satify all our import needs (12-13 million bpd by your calculations, close enough to 11 for government work), that's perfectly sufficient.
The Dodgers/Giants "rivalry" really isn't. It's just a manifestation of the inferiority complex that San Francisco has relative to LA. Ask anyone in LA and they are unaware that any such rivalry actually exists. But yeah, maybe it's an east/west coast thing. Maybe the better weather has us less on edge:)
Read some of the original plot outlines. Here, I'll even dig them up for you. As you can see, the early outlines are essentially just name and location substitutions on The Hidden Fortress. You can see how it evolved and drifted away, and I agree that the end result rather different (which is why Lucas wasn't sued for royalties like Leone was for Fistful of Dollars). However, one cannot underestimate the value of a good starting point. Besides which, there's absolutely no denying that the visuals of certain scenes, like the Vader/Obi Wan fight echo scenes from Hidden Fortress.
I'm not sure that making a concious effort to find a new Kurosawa inspiration would "save Star Wars," but I think it is at least a partial explanation for why Episode IV (the only one of the original trilogy actually written and directed by Lucas) was so much better than I and II.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the exclusive licenses suck, but that's an independent issue from whether NBC is doing a good job.
Actually, most of what I've read suggests that this danger is generally overblown. As long as it is done cautiously, there's no reason why kids can't safely train with weights
Well, Alan Shepard was sitting in a spacesuit full of urine, does that count?
When they say things like this, they usually mean "relative to the first quarter of last year." So if all four quarters show a 50% rate of growth, the growth rate for the year would be 50%, not over 400% (1.5^4-1). They do things this way because the season can make a big difference in puchases, and so they don't want to muddle things by comparing different months or different quarters. The same thing happens for big tetail chains (Walgreens generally reports sales growth on the order of 14% each month, but they mean relative to the same month last year, not the month immediately prior).
No, I mean like on those outdoor things, with the grates over coals, and the flames underneath.
But broiling is the opposite of grilling. Broiling has the meat under the heat source, while the grill has the heat underneath. So what's your word for grilling?
(whoops, actually the guy was named Takagi, not Nakatomi. See what I mean about forgetting irrelevant information?)
Oh, and the field of predicting the future based on the past is called "economics." No, it doesn't work very well yet, but we're working on it (hell, economists managed to predict 8 of the last 3 recessions...)
That's not quite the same as saying that Disney comes out ahead. By letting Pixar go, Disney doesn't GAIN anything they weren't already entitled to under the old contract. But, as you point out, they're not losing anything either. No one's denying that the old contract was absurdly lucrative for Disney. In retrospect, Pixar gave up too much. But of course no one knew that at the time, who could have predicted that CG films could draw in that kind of money?
Anyway, my only point is that you're saying that Disney is somehow "winning" by severing ties with Pixar. They're not. They're simply keeping their winnings from the negotiations several years ago.
Look, even including motion, there's simply not enough data there. Take this as an example: in Lord of the Rings, forced perspective was used for scale issues, so an actor playing a hobbit might actually be far away in the distance relative to an actor playing an elf, but camera positioning would make it appear that they were side by side. No amount of clever software is going to be able to determine where the hobbit is relative to the human, because the filmmakers have intentionally stripped out that data. Even if the software could figure it out, what would the "correct" answer be?
Here's another example: take a shot where the camera is fixed inside a room. Two people are talking. There is essentially no motion, where is the data for relative positions going to come from? Would the film simply revert to 2D for that scene? If the computer were able to determine distance for a person relative to the wall behind him, but were unable to determine that a painting on the wall sticks out, would the painting appear to be a flat decoration, like in Wolfenstein 3D? Am I the only one who thinks that'd be completely distracting?
Your link was still broken. Did you mean this?
http://www.sovmusic.ru/mp3/ddrhymn.mp3
It's still not going to work for a lot of things. Suppose you're panning sideways along an interstate. How does the computer know that the cars are moving, while the trees in the distance are not?
There are a number of limitations for 3D technology as it stands, aside from having to wear goofy glasses. Where you sit will significantly affect how the movie looks, and so directors are restricted to a fairly narrow set of shots that actually look right. This is why 3D never really took off in the past. If one could develop a technology that looks right though, why not use it?
If this is being controlled with Windows, there's the Accessiblity setting "MouseKeys" that lets you control the cursor with the num-pad. I assume Linux must have something similar.
This chart gives a listing on the various LD numbers. The two notes on adult humans: lowest recorded lethal oral dose was 192 g/kg, and the lowest recoreded lethal IV dose was 57 mg/kg.
Actually, if you RTFA, you'll see that it DOES ask you how much you drank the previous night.
Well, the owners DO lose their initial investment, they just can't be forced to pay any more of their own money.
The whole point of a corporation is that its owners are not financially liable for the company's debts.
The question is whether $15/barrel is operating expense or if it includes depreciation of equipment as well. If the latter, then I can certainly see it being useful, as oil prices only occasionally dip below $15/barrel, and presumably he's right that costs will fall somewhat as the technology matures. If the former, then the operation might be ridiculously impractical: the plant cost is clearly well above $10 million, and at 500 barrels per day, a $20 million plant cost depreciated over 20 years adds almost $5.50/barrel.
As you say, we'll just have to wait and see I guess.
Dude, mass transit vehicles still generally need oil. High fuel prices not infrequently cause public transit rate hikes. Bikes are simply not a viable alternative for most transit needs.
Do they? There's no mention in the article of what production costs are. Maybe they're making money at $30 a barrel, but will they still be making money if the price falls back to $12? Also, it mentions that they're making "crude oil no. 4," and I have no idea what that means. I assume it's some categorization for light/heavy, and high/low sulfur, but a quick google search didn't turn up anything.
In response to my sibling post by an AC about demand being 20 million barrels a day, it seems to me that if we can satify all our import needs (12-13 million bpd by your calculations, close enough to 11 for government work), that's perfectly sufficient.
The context of the quote you spliced out was the irrelevance of "popular taste" with respect to personal enjoyment.
And that's my point. Why do you care about influencing popular taste (or the way people express their taste) if it has no influence on your enjoyment?
The Dodgers/Giants "rivalry" really isn't. It's just a manifestation of the inferiority complex that San Francisco has relative to LA. Ask anyone in LA and they are unaware that any such rivalry actually exists. But yeah, maybe it's an east/west coast thing. Maybe the better weather has us less on edge :)
Then why make an entire post defending your viewpoint?
I'm not sure that making a concious effort to find a new Kurosawa inspiration would "save Star Wars," but I think it is at least a partial explanation for why Episode IV (the only one of the original trilogy actually written and directed by Lucas) was so much better than I and II.