All things being equal: the one who draws first with the intent to shoot shoots first.
"Who wins" falls into another hollywood myth: that people fall down when you shoot them. They don't neccessairily. They may be shot several times and still returning fire.
On the other hand, as many police-shootouts will attest, actually hitting the target isn't all that common.
So the study is interesting; but it has nothing to do with a firefight.
Mars has no magnetosphere, and plants are not going to add one. Radiation will still hit hard, and air will still be stripped away by the solar winds.
Mars has little air, and plants don't generally create new air (they pull carbon from existing air), so it will still be airless.
Given the above, it will also still be freezing (a problem plants will have on Mars that ironically is less of an issue in space, where vacuum is an excellent insulator).
So how "terraformed" will it be? Though it would be cool to have something living there, even if it's not us.
Of course. Buying all these small companies causes a lot of debt that needs to be recouped, and adds many more stockholders and executives that need to be paid... and then we bankrupt anyway from over-leveraging and need a bail-out.
And if the RIAA were practicing due dilligence to avoid accusing the innocent, and if the RIAA were making sure to only persue copyrights it actually owns, and if the RIAA were behaving legally and ethically in its investigation, and if the RIAA was attempting a good-faith protection of copyright (they seem to just see this as a revenue stream), and if the penalties were sane, then I would agree with you.
I support copyright, though I oppose that it's been extended to a century or more here in the US. I oppose piracy when there are good legitemate alternatives. That's a far cry from supporting an organization that takes exorbitant money from the innocent because it can.
My bet would be for spooky-action-at-a-distance for covering interstellar (and likely interplanetary) distances, and most likely something in the RF spectrum for "local". It's just too convienient.
Don't forget, we are using lasers to communicate too.
Might it be possible that, with UHC, Afghanistan, Iraq, now Hati, re-election campaigns, issues of open-government, Gitmo, bailouts, unemployment, etc.... might it be possible that awards to the RIAA simply aren't on Obama's radar at all?
Couldn't this just be the people of the Justice Department, most of whom predate Obama and who Obama has never met, being (as pointed out) in the music-industry's pocket?
Don't get me wrong: I don't know where the president stands on this issue, and he may indeed support the RIAA position... I just don't see that this instance establishes that.
Instead, what's involved are two different approaches intended to help content vendors somehow survive in the face of plummeting revenues
2010 was a record year at the box office and (I believe) the video store. Where's the damage that they are attempting to mitigate?
DRM just seems like a way to force me to rebuy what I already own 10 years from now.
Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie
on
Hot Or Not — 3D TV
·
· Score: 1
I have in the past, but did not with Avatar. It seems that the quality of the projection and glasses have a major effect on how much of an issue this is. I suspect (like motion-induced motion-sickness), proximity to the screen is also an issue.
The first barrier, of course, is a consistant standard or interoperable group of standards.
I suspect that, given the limitations of the technology, 3D TVs, will need to be easily put in "2D only" mode, and 3D media and broadcasts as well.
I'll buck the trend. I'm excited for 3D. Fujitsu showed a 3D camera and, if the price is right I'll get it.
But there are trade-offs on TV. If the standards look there, I'll get one of the "no glasses" 3D computer monitors when I can afford it. I think it would be terriffic for games and the disadvantage of that tech (that you have to keep your head right in front of it) is not much of an issue for a monitor.
But it's not a good technology for most of my TVs (nor possible for my projection system) as they are often viewed at odd angles.
I would be OK with unpowered glasses (again, need an easy way to switch to 2D), but I think that a thethered system, or a system with expensive / heavy / propritary active glasses is something I'm not likely to buy at all.
Make it cheap (not much more than non 3D), and balance conviencience and ease of "switching to 2D" and I'm interested.
(and 3D movies are 4D... it's just that the 4D is bigger than your field of vision and the rate of viewing it is controlled to 1 second per second).
What if ICANN goes under? The internet goes down. Many things we rely on depend on some company staying up.
*If* there's a multi-major-corporation committment to a central repository (which the article discusses), then the only real issues may be of posterirty, or deleberate revocation of rights.
If, on the other hand, individual vendors do their own validation: then as the Slashdot snippit suggests, we are at the mercy of the corporate whims, as was seen with so many DRM music sites.
Believable and realistic are not the same thing. (and didn't your other example, Dark Star, end with a guy in a space-suit surfing on a broken piece of space-ship?).
I've looked at Africa, and there are cars and assault rifles.
Firefly isn't consistant about the lack of sound in space. Like most producers (say JJAbrams and StarTrek), Joss *knows* their is no sound in space, but he also knows that often makes for bad film. So sometimes he uses no sound, and other times he uses sound.
Of course, there's no way to know what the reality of an unprecedented evolution of culture would be like. There's nothing to compare it to.
I think my point is: the science is *really* bad in Firefly. The science is far better than average in Avatar.
OK. I'll agree with both of those complaints about Avatar. I would very much have liked to see a more nuance'd movie: though I suspect that nuance would hurt rather than help box office totals.
Huh? Serenity exists in a universe where there are more than a dozen habitable planets in a single star system, where all air is breathable, where all planets have the same gravity, where no reaction mass is required to travel, where g-forces don't exist, where it's possible to drive around a sysetm like you drive a boat: with no need to worry about transistion orbits or the like, where it's possible for revears to fill a section of space so completely as to blocade it.
And that's just a short list from the top of my head. Firefly has extremely little realism when it comes to science... one of the least realistic I can think of.
Don't get me wrong: I own both Firefly and Serenity because I love the show, but realistic!?! You must be kidding.
They try to root it in the scientifically plausible, yet unlikely, ideas.
Watch how fast I can make is plausable.
What if the biosphere of Pandora was deliberately manipulated at some point in the past? What if the planetary network is a designed thing, as is the ability of Pandorian life to interface with it?
I just saw it last weekend, and I gotta say.. Science Fiction? Not much. Science Fantasy is more like it.
Compared to 2001 or 2010 perhaps. Otherwise, Avatar is the most realistic (from the standpoint of physics) SciFi movie I can think of.
They actually made a ship that was mostly fuel and heat radiator, actually had it radiating heat, actually put the crew compartment far from the reactor, and actually travelled slower than light.
They aknowledged a different gravity, and adjusted several scenes accordingly, had the first plant I can remember in a long time with air you can't breathe, and (though they seem to have forgotten the effect in daytime) made creatures that are well camoflogued at night (which is likely the majority of the time since you have both rotational night and "blocked by the parent planet" night).
Part of the hype was that Cameron spent 8 bazillion years working on this movie and that's another thing that spoils it, you expect something great and wonderful and almost Star Wars like, but you get another popcorn movie, albeit an expensive one.
Funny true story. StarWars is not original.
Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, he just put it in space. He hired as a consultant the man who wrote "the Hero with a Thousand Faces", about the commonality of archtypes in stories around the world and throughout history: and Star Wars follows this pattern very rigidly (and repeates it in Empire). Add some scene-for-scene WWII air combat scenes and you have a movie.
Don't get me wrong: I *love* Star Wars. But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
All stories that move you do so because they touch a personal experience or belief. Your beef seems to be that you feel there is a political message: and I'm sure you feel it's aimed at modern times.
While there may be a political message, Avatar's plot (as stated by Cameron) is basically "Dances with Wolves", and most every complaint you have should be directed there. While you are at it, make sure to hit basically everything Miazaki ever did (Princess Mononoke).
And if, like Dances with Wolves, the Natives are idealized: the colonial powers are not. The Na'vi are simply lucky there doesn't seem to be an equivelant to "small pox blankets".
Given Cameron's history (True Lies, Titanic, The Abyss, Aliens (where nature is evil)) I don't think there's much case to be made that he's preaching.
Yes. Power is generated when heat is moved from an area of high concentration (your head) to an area of low concentration (the air).
If the device facilitates that transfer in order to get more energy from it; then it would indeed cool you down. It requires only tha the headband be more effective at radiating heat than your skin is.
While I agree that there's no causation there: I'm still incredulous that a 15% increase in brain cancer (0.5% per year * 30 years) is concluded by the study as "insignifigant".
I'd love to see the year-by-year breakdown (it's not like there were cellphones in 1974).
I'm not saying that cellphones cause cancer (though my own non-brain cancer was directly under where I carried mine), but I am questioning whether the cited study has any useful information either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone should get right on the technology (and engineering) of how to move billions of tons of mass out in space.
I think you underestimate the challenge of doing that.
It was said of a knife fight, but seems appropriate to a gun fight.
What do you call the guy that dies of wounds in the hospital two days after the fight? The winner.
All things being equal: the one who draws first with the intent to shoot shoots first.
"Who wins" falls into another hollywood myth: that people fall down when you shoot them. They don't neccessairily. They may be shot several times and still returning fire.
On the other hand, as many police-shootouts will attest, actually hitting the target isn't all that common.
So the study is interesting; but it has nothing to do with a firefight.
But what will you end up with?
Mars has no magnetosphere, and plants are not going to add one. Radiation will still hit hard, and air will still be stripped away by the solar winds.
Mars has little air, and plants don't generally create new air (they pull carbon from existing air), so it will still be airless.
Given the above, it will also still be freezing (a problem plants will have on Mars that ironically is less of an issue in space, where vacuum is an excellent insulator).
So how "terraformed" will it be? Though it would be cool to have something living there, even if it's not us.
Of course. Buying all these small companies causes a lot of debt that needs to be recouped, and adds many more stockholders and executives that need to be paid... and then we bankrupt anyway from over-leveraging and need a bail-out.
And if the RIAA were practicing due dilligence to avoid accusing the innocent, and if the RIAA were making sure to only persue copyrights it actually owns, and if the RIAA were behaving legally and ethically in its investigation, and if the RIAA was attempting a good-faith protection of copyright (they seem to just see this as a revenue stream), and if the penalties were sane, then I would agree with you.
I support copyright, though I oppose that it's been extended to a century or more here in the US. I oppose piracy when there are good legitemate alternatives. That's a far cry from supporting an organization that takes exorbitant money from the innocent because it can.
He reportedly was in charge of monitoring illegal music downloads on university computers.
Wouldn't this be more useful to stop than just monitor?
In Soviet Russia: Music downloads you.
My bet would be for spooky-action-at-a-distance for covering interstellar (and likely interplanetary) distances, and most likely something in the RF spectrum for "local". It's just too convienient.
Don't forget, we are using lasers to communicate too.
Might it be possible that, with UHC, Afghanistan, Iraq, now Hati, re-election campaigns, issues of open-government, Gitmo, bailouts, unemployment, etc.... might it be possible that awards to the RIAA simply aren't on Obama's radar at all?
Couldn't this just be the people of the Justice Department, most of whom predate Obama and who Obama has never met, being (as pointed out) in the music-industry's pocket?
Don't get me wrong: I don't know where the president stands on this issue, and he may indeed support the RIAA position... I just don't see that this instance establishes that.
The deal is that the *point* of the item is to *not* kill.
Sandboxing & virtualization of a sick browser is not a panacea.
No, but it's better than not sandboxed.
I notice you don't mention that IE8 is not actually vunerable unless you reconfigure it that way because DEP is on.
A hale and open sourced browser is the only safe way to go. Screw IE, any version.
Because those have no bugs?
Sorry. 2009
Instead, what's involved are two different approaches intended to help content vendors somehow survive in the face of plummeting revenues
2010 was a record year at the box office and (I believe) the video store. Where's the damage that they are attempting to mitigate?
DRM just seems like a way to force me to rebuy what I already own 10 years from now.
I have in the past, but did not with Avatar. It seems that the quality of the projection and glasses have a major effect on how much of an issue this is. I suspect (like motion-induced motion-sickness), proximity to the screen is also an issue.
The first barrier, of course, is a consistant standard or interoperable group of standards.
I suspect that, given the limitations of the technology, 3D TVs, will need to be easily put in "2D only" mode, and 3D media and broadcasts as well.
I'll buck the trend. I'm excited for 3D. Fujitsu showed a 3D camera and, if the price is right I'll get it.
But there are trade-offs on TV. If the standards look there, I'll get one of the "no glasses" 3D computer monitors when I can afford it. I think it would be terriffic for games and the disadvantage of that tech (that you have to keep your head right in front of it) is not much of an issue for a monitor.
But it's not a good technology for most of my TVs (nor possible for my projection system) as they are often viewed at odd angles.
I would be OK with unpowered glasses (again, need an easy way to switch to 2D), but I think that a thethered system, or a system with expensive / heavy / propritary active glasses is something I'm not likely to buy at all.
Make it cheap (not much more than non 3D), and balance conviencience and ease of "switching to 2D" and I'm interested.
(and 3D movies are 4D... it's just that the 4D is bigger than your field of vision and the rate of viewing it is controlled to 1 second per second).
What if ICANN goes under? The internet goes down. Many things we rely on depend on some company staying up.
*If* there's a multi-major-corporation committment to a central repository (which the article discusses), then the only real issues may be of posterirty, or deleberate revocation of rights.
If, on the other hand, individual vendors do their own validation: then as the Slashdot snippit suggests, we are at the mercy of the corporate whims, as was seen with so many DRM music sites.
Believable and realistic are not the same thing. (and didn't your other example, Dark Star, end with a guy in a space-suit surfing on a broken piece of space-ship?).
I've looked at Africa, and there are cars and assault rifles.
Firefly isn't consistant about the lack of sound in space. Like most producers (say JJAbrams and StarTrek), Joss *knows* their is no sound in space, but he also knows that often makes for bad film. So sometimes he uses no sound, and other times he uses sound.
Of course, there's no way to know what the reality of an unprecedented evolution of culture would be like. There's nothing to compare it to.
I think my point is: the science is *really* bad in Firefly. The science is far better than average in Avatar.
"lacks subtlty" and "kind of cliche'"?
OK. I'll agree with both of those complaints about Avatar. I would very much have liked to see a more nuance'd movie: though I suspect that nuance would hurt rather than help box office totals.
Huh? Serenity exists in a universe where there are more than a dozen habitable planets in a single star system, where all air is breathable, where all planets have the same gravity, where no reaction mass is required to travel, where g-forces don't exist, where it's possible to drive around a sysetm like you drive a boat: with no need to worry about transistion orbits or the like, where it's possible for revears to fill a section of space so completely as to blocade it.
And that's just a short list from the top of my head. Firefly has extremely little realism when it comes to science... one of the least realistic I can think of.
Don't get me wrong: I own both Firefly and Serenity because I love the show, but realistic!?! You must be kidding.
They try to root it in the scientifically plausible, yet unlikely, ideas.
Watch how fast I can make is plausable.
What if the biosphere of Pandora was deliberately manipulated at some point in the past? What if the planetary network is a designed thing, as is the ability of Pandorian life to interface with it?
I just saw it last weekend, and I gotta say.. Science Fiction? Not much. Science Fantasy is more like it.
Compared to 2001 or 2010 perhaps. Otherwise, Avatar is the most realistic (from the standpoint of physics) SciFi movie I can think of.
They actually made a ship that was mostly fuel and heat radiator, actually had it radiating heat, actually put the crew compartment far from the reactor, and actually travelled slower than light.
They aknowledged a different gravity, and adjusted several scenes accordingly, had the first plant I can remember in a long time with air you can't breathe, and (though they seem to have forgotten the effect in daytime) made creatures that are well camoflogued at night (which is likely the majority of the time since you have both rotational night and "blocked by the parent planet" night).
Part of the hype was that Cameron spent 8 bazillion years working on this movie and that's another thing that spoils it, you expect something great and wonderful and almost Star Wars like, but you get another popcorn movie, albeit an expensive one.
Funny true story. StarWars is not original.
Lucas wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, he just put it in space. He hired as a consultant the man who wrote "the Hero with a Thousand Faces", about the commonality of archtypes in stories around the world and throughout history: and Star Wars follows this pattern very rigidly (and repeates it in Empire). Add some scene-for-scene WWII air combat scenes and you have a movie.
Don't get me wrong: I *love* Star Wars. But this complaint that Avatar is not original ignores that noting is original.
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
All stories that move you do so because they touch a personal experience or belief. Your beef seems to be that you feel there is a political message: and I'm sure you feel it's aimed at modern times.
While there may be a political message, Avatar's plot (as stated by Cameron) is basically "Dances with Wolves", and most every complaint you have should be directed there. While you are at it, make sure to hit basically everything Miazaki ever did (Princess Mononoke).
And if, like Dances with Wolves, the Natives are idealized: the colonial powers are not. The Na'vi are simply lucky there doesn't seem to be an equivelant to "small pox blankets".
Given Cameron's history (True Lies, Titanic, The Abyss, Aliens (where nature is evil)) I don't think there's much case to be made that he's preaching.
Yes. Power is generated when heat is moved from an area of high concentration (your head) to an area of low concentration (the air).
If the device facilitates that transfer in order to get more energy from it; then it would indeed cool you down. It requires only tha the headband be more effective at radiating heat than your skin is.
While I agree that there's no causation there: I'm still incredulous that a 15% increase in brain cancer (0.5% per year * 30 years) is concluded by the study as "insignifigant".
I'd love to see the year-by-year breakdown (it's not like there were cellphones in 1974).
I'm not saying that cellphones cause cancer (though my own non-brain cancer was directly under where I carried mine), but I am questioning whether the cited study has any useful information either way.