For CGI in movies, are there any that have used voxel based technology (since they have more computing power available $$$) ?
It seems most of (if not all) the commercial packages are polygon based, right ?
BTW - Good analogy with the vector/raster graphics. Remember Space Fury ? It had the face of an alien drawn with vectors, when I saw that I thought it was the best graphics in a game ever !!!
I've wasted my time trying to have a discussion, and what I get is an idiotic moron that just throws insults all the time and accuses others of obsenely offensive things (advocating killing people).
Keep it up buddy ! Maybe somebody will listen to what you have to say, once you change your presentation. For now, the world will dismiss you as a wacko that tries to read minds and tell people what they think. How sad.
> Well, your implication was quite clear; and you keep reinforcing it.
One last thing, I NEVER IMPLIED SUCH A THING. And to be honest, why carry on a converstation when you make up implications and can't point them out ? I've tried to make clear I didn't say that at all 1,000 posts ago. I'm not distorting what you say, why do you do that to what I say.
Nobody is going to learn anything from you with your attitude.
By original poster I ment the story, not your first post.
Keep living in your little dualistic world, where the people who disagree with you are just "eviiiiiil".
> You asserted that anti-abortionists in general don't advocate killing abortionists. Can you prove that? Didn't think so.
Don't need to prove that. Just like I don't believe that all animal rights people advocate terrorism.
> Fortunately, no one on my side as bombed an abortion clinic, so I feel I have the stronger credibility of the two opinions.
Your side ? I'm not talking about sides here, just how you like to paint people who don't agree with you.
> since I don't really give a shit about your stand on abortion, or how many clinics you blow up,
Getting personal again ? So now I'm going to blow up a clinic too. Funny thing is, you don't even know what my stand on abortion is !!!! LOL !!! Just that I disagree, so I must be for blowing up clinics. Wow !
So if I where to discuss why Communists should have a right to express their opinions, does that mean I'm a Communist too ?
> Yes, that's about right. I will take at face value your assertion that you really don't understand what the protests were about,
Your "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt" was (or read) related your wrongly misquoting me as saying/impliying "I've protested, don't try it because it doesn't work". I can't make this more clear. Now you are attributing it to something else.
> Quit trying to blame your feelings of inadequacy on the messenger.
Nice way to carry on a conversation. I haven't expressed any feelings of inadequacy, just expressing disagreements with the apparent motives of the original poster.
If that's how you carry on converstations with people you disagree, it's any wonder how you can learn anything.
If my CPU cycles help find a cure to cancer, I COULDN'T CARE LESS IF:
If I didn't get paid.
If I didn't get credit.
If the company gets rich by said finding.
Of course I would love that such a finding is shared and not abused by an extremly greedy company (overpriced medicine). But we need a cure for this thing NOW, and if such a trivial task does help, then participate or move aside.
Geez, I really didn't need to know that... You know what rhetorical means, right? Or are you still trying to establish credentials?
No credentials, just the North and South stuff people born in the US spout, amazes me all the time.
I don't know what anti-abortionists you know, but the ones I ever met were definitely in favor of killing those who performed abortions. They just couldn't admit it or act on it without fear of prosecution.
And I disprove your assertion by counter example, since all the ones I know do not think that way.
Furthermore, the world is not composed of the people "you've met", and statements like "most" (that means over 50%) think this way, is just silly.
Show me a psychological study or poll that proves what you say and you might have a point.
This is like saying most people in the US speak Spanish, since most of my friends do. Duh !
I'm from Central America, and I live in Florida. Is FL part of the "deep south" ?
And again, most people, in the US and the world, who are against abortion do not advocate killing people to achive their goals. If they did, there would be a lot more shootings right now.
> In order for me to continue a discussion with you, you need from me, or I will write you off as a contentious ass and move on...
What I meant is that to me, your remark about "give you the benefit of the doubt", sounded like, ok I'll believe you for now, as if there's any interpretation that I might have implied...
"I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good."
English might be my second language, and I might be off interpretating that phrase (benefit of the doubt), but I don't take lightly to people claiming that I'm even implying , "Don't protest because I did and it didn't work, it was for nothing".
No, no, no
As for the rest of what you wrote, I don't exactly have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people just protesting against anything and it not being clear. I don't get from what I read that this guy was protesting against Republicans, cops, the city, or anything. For all I know, he might have been protesting against his mommy.
As to how the protest as a whole will be regarded in the future, that's another matter altogether and not what I'm talking about. This all started (In defense of the action) discussing the guy's motives. Which I will repeat, are not clear, and in fact seemed (just by reading his stuff) just to get arrested. No purpuse or statement.
> Okay, okay. Your original post sounded to me like more than a mere literary critque, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't need the benefit of the doubt, I just simply did not write nor express that (I've protested and it doesn't do any good).
> Kind hard to believe you have access to the internet and can't get even the most basic information about political dissent in the US, but I guess that's part of the reason for the protests...
There are many "political dissent" organizations in the US, and there where many causes being promoted and things protested against in Philadelphia, I just don't know which one HE WAS REPRESENTING. There where people for gay rights, animal rights, child hunger, pro/anti abortion, etc. I'm just critizing the fact that the author did not feel it was important to express what he was expressing there. As being somebody involved in similar things some time ago, I just find it hard to believe that he would not mention something like that in his write up. I cannot be more clear.
> Bullshit. If you don't understand what he was protesting against, then you haven't been paying attention.
I have, I read his article, I still don't know what he's protesting against.
> That's not his failing, it's yours,
I don't understand it because I don't think he expressed what he was opposing/protesting very well. You can blame it on me, but I don't feel he expressed it well. Oh well..
> and it puts you squarely in the camp of the politicians, who really, really don't want to understand what everyone is protesting about...
I do want to understand, I just don't understand him DAMNIT !
> You're just telling him "don't bother", and now you're claiming additionally "I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good."
I NEVER, NEVER said "I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good." I honestly believe the fruits of our protests resulted in the overthrow of the dictatorship we where under.
> I believe I hate all republicans. As stated before, they're all a bunch of a fucking idiots.
Wow, that's a lot of hate to go around. I'll never understand that.
> BTW, I don't think something is about "expressing one's political beliefs" if one (john mccain) isn't allowed to do it.
I personally would have loved it if John McCain chose to blast the convention with a big speech on big money and how it corrupts the system. However, he chose to follow the party line. It was his decision, and a wise one for him to make in a political sense if not a moral one.
However, it's up to Republicans to decide who speaks or not speaks at their convention. What if President Clinton wanted to address the convention, shouldn't they have a say as to who can talk or not ? Again, the convention itself, is expression of free speech, in the sense than in an dictatorship you wouldn't be allowed to organize such a thing for an opposition party (I've lived that).
As for dissenting views, John McCain chose not to. Colin Powell on the other hand, did express opinions (affirmative action, for example) that go against the "Republican" agenda/platform.
But even then, if they wanted to cancel Mr. Powells keynote due to content, they are allowed to do it. Just like they would do it if I wanted to talk about Computer Science at their convention.
> That's awfully funny, because I coulda sworn that John McCain was forced not to speak about Campaign Finance Reform. HRM THATS ODD, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
I didn't say it was "ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH", I said :
All conventions are about freedom of speech, in the sense that in the United States of America, one of the most important principles is to be able to express your opinions regardless of political beliefs.
The convention itself is the expression of speech in the case of political beliefs. How they organize their convention is their business. If they want to have Mickey Mouse give a speech and not Einstein it's up to them.
I fucking hate republicans, a bunch of fucking idiots...
You hate all Republicans or just their leaders ? There's a lot of Democrats, Republicans, Communists, etc. , that I love !:-)
> I think what they are protesting is understood, especially by the republicrats and their minion.
I'm not talking about all the protestors, I was talking about the guy in the story. No, it wasn't clear to me what he was protesting against. He mentioned briefly something "against poverty". Well , that sounds like a worthy cause, be he didn't talk about it at all.
If you don't understand what he's protesting against, then he failed.
> He participated in something bigger than himself. He made himself a part of a group who is trying to accomplish something no single individual can accomplish.You probably don't understand that.
Yes I do. I just don't understand what this guy was trying to accomplish besides getting arrested and posting his experience on the web.
Look, I come from a country where all of the sudden they took our constitutional rights away from us and it was not legal to gather in groups to talk against the government. I understand what being a part of something "bigger". I lived it.
> From my POV I respect him for having a clearer vision of what needs to be done than people like you... although he still hasn't got it totally, at least he's trying.
I've "tried" already, and have been tear gassed and shot at (not hit). Have you ?
> People like you are just reactionaries, cruising along taking potshots at anyone who is a bit off the line you're toeing.
I don't know who "people like you are", I'm just giving an opinion based on my life experience. Don't lump me with those who do nothing, or your so called "republicrats". My world view is not so limited.
> Politicians are criminals and should be prosecuted; since they have placed themselves beyond the reach of law, vigilante justice should apply.
So are you going to ban any registered Republican (or Democrat) from your street ???
What if a person believed that members of the Green Party are anarchists, should people from the Green Party be treated as criminal as well. Should be have vigilantes going after Ralph Nader ?
> The Republican convention is nothing about freedom of speech.
All conventions are about freedom of speech, in the sense that in the United States of America, one of the most important principles is to be able to express your opinions regardless of political beliefs.
> It is an orgy of big business pouring money into the political system, buying politicians, and creating a fabricated and imaginary hope for the people.
It doesn't matter, they still have a right to a convention.
> People have the freedom to speak out against them just as much as they have the freedom to spread lies.
If you want to be able to protest, then let the Republicans, Democrats and Vegetarians have conventions. Your statement about the purpose of the protest is so no city would want to host a Republican convention is just downright facist.
If you're going to express such oppresive opinions, please do your candidate (or party) a favor and remove your signature, lest people think the Green Party is about restricting free speech (which I'm sure it's not).
Just do a seach on the quote :
http://www.democrats.org/archive/news/rcn1999/rcn1 12999.html
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
"There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." -- George Jr., discussing a web site that parodies him
He might have meant "free speech", but I think I quoted him correctly.
Yes, appearance is important. When we used to protest against the dictator in my home country (Panama), we used to dress in white, which was the color for peace (obviously) and the color for the "Cruzada Civilista" (Civil Crusade), the organistion opposing the government.
We would still get shot at and tear gassed, but I'm sure we would have attracted less symphaty to our cause if we weared combat fatigues.
> This guy went out and actually did something that addressed issues that are important to him. That simple fact by itself should be applauded.
What the he actually do ? What are the issues he's fighting for ? He mentions the word "anti-poverty" one time and that's it. If he really felt strongly about anything, it should be mentioned in the article. Passionate that protest *something*, at least would mention what it is they're protesting.
>Furthermore, the tone tone of the article is not 'whining' or 'complaining' as so many posters accuse. In fact, I thought it was quite equitable.
It's whining when you join a protest because somebody is looking for people "willing to get arrested". When I've protested before, I was never willing to get arrested, but to show my point of view or complain about something I considered unjust.
Sorry, there's is nothing to admire from this guy.
I respect and admire people who fight for social justice. This guy ain't one of them. Just going to a protest because some guy was looking for people "willing to go to jail" does not a martyr make.
I would feel more for him, if he didn't whine so much about being "harassed" and explained his convictions and purpose for protesting.
Slashdot Mirror
> under w2k (possibly others) important files (and solitare) are protected so that you cannot edit/delete them.
Duh !!! Have you ever heard of ROOT ?!?!?! LOL !!!!
For CGI in movies, are there any that have used voxel based technology (since they have more computing power available $$$) ?
It seems most of (if not all) the commercial packages are polygon based, right ?
BTW - Good analogy with the vector/raster graphics. Remember Space Fury ? It had the face of an alien drawn with vectors, when I saw that I thought it was the best graphics in a game ever !!!
> although I'm sure you support those that do...
I don't, and who cares what you think anyways ?
I've wasted my time trying to have a discussion, and what I get is an idiotic moron that just throws insults all the time and accuses others of obsenely offensive things (advocating killing people).
Keep it up buddy ! Maybe somebody will listen to what you have to say, once you change your presentation. For now, the world will dismiss you as a wacko that tries to read minds and tell people what they think. How sad.
> Well, your implication was quite clear; and you keep reinforcing it.
One last thing, I NEVER IMPLIED SUCH A THING. And to be honest, why carry on a converstation when you make up implications and can't point them out ? I've tried to make clear I didn't say that at all 1,000 posts ago. I'm not distorting what you say, why do you do that to what I say.
Nobody is going to learn anything from you with your attitude.
By original poster I ment the story, not your first post.
> Why not just line up over there with the crowd that think's I'm a fringe wacko?
Ok, since you've been anything but civil and just insultive, yes you are a wacko. Happy now ?
Keep living in your little dualistic world, where the people who disagree with you are just "eviiiiiil".
> You asserted that anti-abortionists in general don't advocate killing abortionists. Can you prove that? Didn't think so.
Don't need to prove that. Just like I don't believe that all animal rights people advocate terrorism.
> Fortunately, no one on my side as bombed an abortion clinic, so I feel I have the stronger credibility of the two opinions.
Your side ? I'm not talking about sides here, just how you like to paint people who don't agree with you.
> since I don't really give a shit about your stand on abortion, or how many clinics you blow up,
Getting personal again ? So now I'm going to blow up a clinic too. Funny thing is, you don't even know what my stand on abortion is !!!! LOL !!! Just that I disagree, so I must be for blowing up clinics. Wow !
So if I where to discuss why Communists should have a right to express their opinions, does that mean I'm a Communist too ?
Again, interesting dualistic world you live in.
> Yes, that's about right. I will take at face value your assertion that you really don't understand what the protests were about,
Your "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt" was (or read) related your wrongly misquoting me as saying/impliying "I've protested, don't try it because it doesn't work". I can't make this more clear. Now you are attributing it to something else.
> Quit trying to blame your feelings of inadequacy on the messenger.
Nice way to carry on a conversation. I haven't expressed any feelings of inadequacy, just expressing disagreements with the apparent motives of the original poster.
If that's how you carry on converstations with people you disagree, it's any wonder how you can learn anything.
If I didn't get paid.
If I didn't get credit.
If the company gets rich by said finding.
Of course I would love that such a finding is shared and not abused by an extremly greedy company (overpriced medicine). But we need a cure for this thing NOW, and if such a trivial task does help, then participate or move aside.
Geez, I really didn't need to know that... You know what rhetorical means, right? Or are you still trying to establish credentials?
No credentials, just the North and South stuff people born in the US spout, amazes me all the time.
I don't know what anti-abortionists you know, but the ones I ever met were definitely in favor of killing those who performed abortions. They just couldn't admit it or act on it without fear of prosecution.
And I disprove your assertion by counter example, since all the ones I know do not think that way.
Furthermore, the world is not composed of the people "you've met", and statements like "most" (that means over 50%) think this way, is just silly.
Show me a psychological study or poll that proves what you say and you might have a point.
This is like saying most people in the US speak Spanish, since most of my friends do. Duh !
> So you're not from the deep south, I take it.
I'm from Central America, and I live in Florida. Is FL part of the "deep south" ?
And again, most people, in the US and the world, who are against abortion do not advocate killing people to achive their goals. If they did, there would be a lot more shootings right now.
> In order for me to continue a discussion with you, you need from me, or I will write you off as a contentious ass and move on...
...
What I meant is that to me, your remark about "give you the benefit of the doubt", sounded like, ok I'll believe you for now, as if there's any interpretation that I might have implied
"I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good."
English might be my second language, and I might be off interpretating that phrase (benefit of the doubt), but I don't take lightly to people claiming that I'm even implying , "Don't protest because I did and it didn't work, it was for nothing".
No, no, no
As for the rest of what you wrote, I don't exactly have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people just protesting against anything and it not being clear. I don't get from what I read that this guy was protesting against Republicans, cops, the city, or anything. For all I know, he might have been protesting against his mommy.
As to how the protest as a whole will be regarded in the future, that's another matter altogether and not what I'm talking about. This all started (In defense of the action) discussing the guy's motives. Which I will repeat, are not clear, and in fact seemed (just by reading his stuff) just to get arrested. No purpuse or statement.
> Okay, okay. Your original post sounded to me like more than a mere literary critque, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't need the benefit of the doubt, I just simply did not write nor express that (I've protested and it doesn't do any good).
> Kind hard to believe you have access to the internet and can't get even the most basic information about political dissent in the US, but I guess that's part of the reason for the protests...
There are many "political dissent" organizations in the US, and there where many causes being promoted and things protested against in Philadelphia, I just don't know which one HE WAS REPRESENTING. There where people for gay rights, animal rights, child hunger, pro/anti abortion, etc. I'm just critizing the fact that the author did not feel it was important to express what he was expressing there. As being somebody involved in similar things some time ago, I just find it hard to believe that he would not mention something like that in his write up. I cannot be more clear.
> Someone else will foot the bill when you yourself are retired.
:-)
Hopefully
Most people who are against abortion, do not advocate killing anybody to achive their goals. Not in this reality, at least.
> Bullshit. If you don't understand what he was protesting against, then you haven't been paying attention.
..
I have, I read his article, I still don't know what he's protesting against.
> That's not his failing, it's yours,
I don't understand it because I don't think he expressed what he was opposing/protesting very well. You can blame it on me, but I don't feel he expressed it well. Oh well
> and it puts you squarely in the camp of the politicians, who really, really don't want to understand what everyone is protesting about...
I do want to understand, I just don't understand him DAMNIT !
> You're just telling him "don't bother", and now you're claiming additionally "I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good."
I NEVER, NEVER said "I've already tried that and it doesn't do any good." I honestly believe the fruits of our protests resulted in the overthrow of the dictatorship we where under.
Please don't distort what I'm saying.
> I believe I hate all republicans. As stated before, they're all a bunch of a fucking idiots.
Wow, that's a lot of hate to go around. I'll never understand that.
> BTW, I don't think something is about "expressing one's political beliefs" if one (john mccain) isn't allowed to do it.
I personally would have loved it if John McCain chose to blast the convention with a big speech on big money and how it corrupts the system. However, he chose to follow the party line. It was his decision, and a wise one for him to make in a political sense if not a moral one.
However, it's up to Republicans to decide who speaks or not speaks at their convention. What if President Clinton wanted to address the convention, shouldn't they have a say as to who can talk or not ? Again, the convention itself, is expression of free speech, in the sense than in an dictatorship you wouldn't be allowed to organize such a thing for an opposition party (I've lived that).
As for dissenting views, John McCain chose not to. Colin Powell on the other hand, did express opinions (affirmative action, for example) that go against the "Republican" agenda/platform.
But even then, if they wanted to cancel Mr. Powells keynote due to content, they are allowed to do it. Just like they would do it if I wanted to talk about Computer Science at their convention.
> That's awfully funny, because I coulda sworn that John McCain was forced not to speak about Campaign Finance Reform. HRM THATS ODD, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
:-)
I didn't say it was "ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH", I said :
All conventions are about freedom of speech, in the sense that in the United States of America, one of the most important principles is to be able to express your opinions regardless of political beliefs.
The convention itself is the expression of speech in the case of political beliefs. How they organize their convention is their business. If they want to have Mickey Mouse give a speech and not Einstein it's up to them.
I fucking hate republicans, a bunch of fucking idiots...
You hate all Republicans or just their leaders ? There's a lot of Democrats, Republicans, Communists, etc. , that I love !
> I think what they are protesting is understood, especially by the republicrats and their minion.
I'm not talking about all the protestors, I was talking about the guy in the story. No, it wasn't clear to me what he was protesting against. He mentioned briefly something "against poverty". Well , that sounds like a worthy cause, be he didn't talk about it at all.
If you don't understand what he's protesting against, then he failed.
> He participated in something bigger than himself. He made himself a part of a group who is trying to accomplish something no single individual can accomplish.You probably don't understand that.
Yes I do. I just don't understand what this guy was trying to accomplish besides getting arrested and posting his experience on the web.
Look, I come from a country where all of the sudden they took our constitutional rights away from us and it was not legal to gather in groups to talk against the government. I understand what being a part of something "bigger". I lived it.
> From my POV I respect him for having a clearer vision of what needs to be done than people like you... although he still hasn't got it totally, at least he's trying. I've "tried" already, and have been tear gassed and shot at (not hit). Have you ?
> People like you are just reactionaries, cruising along taking potshots at anyone who is a bit off the line you're toeing.
I don't know who "people like you are", I'm just giving an opinion based on my life experience. Don't lump me with those who do nothing, or your so called "republicrats". My world view is not so limited.
> Politicians are criminals and should be prosecuted; since they have placed themselves beyond the reach of law, vigilante justice should apply.
...
So are you going to ban any registered Republican (or Democrat) from your street ???
What if a person believed that members of the Green Party are anarchists, should people from the Green Party be treated as criminal as well. Should be have vigilantes going after Ralph Nader ?
Interesting
> The Republican convention is nothing about freedom of speech.
All conventions are about freedom of speech, in the sense that in the United States of America, one of the most important principles is to be able to express your opinions regardless of political beliefs.
> It is an orgy of big business pouring money into the political system, buying politicians, and creating a fabricated and imaginary hope for the people.
It doesn't matter, they still have a right to a convention.
> People have the freedom to speak out against them just as much as they have the freedom to spread lies.
If you want to be able to protest, then let the Republicans, Democrats and Vegetarians have conventions. Your statement about the purpose of the protest is so no city would want to host a Republican convention is just downright facist.
If you're going to express such oppresive opinions, please do your candidate (or party) a favor and remove your signature, lest people think the Green Party is about restricting free speech (which I'm sure it's not).
Just do a seach on the quote :1 12999.html
http://www.democrats.org/archive/news/rcn1999/rcn
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
"There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." -- George Jr., discussing a web site that parodies him
He might have meant "free speech", but I think I quoted him correctly.
Yes, appearance is important. When we used to protest against the dictator in my home country (Panama), we used to dress in white, which was the color for peace (obviously) and the color for the "Cruzada Civilista" (Civil Crusade), the organistion opposing the government.
We would still get shot at and tear gassed, but I'm sure we would have attracted less symphaty to our cause if we weared combat fatigues.
> This guy went out and actually did something that addressed issues that are important to him. That simple fact by itself should be applauded.
What the he actually do ? What are the issues he's fighting for ? He mentions the word "anti-poverty" one time and that's it. If he really felt strongly about anything, it should be mentioned in the article. Passionate that protest *something*, at least would mention what it is they're protesting.
>Furthermore, the tone tone of the article is not 'whining' or 'complaining' as so many posters accuse. In fact, I thought it was quite equitable.
It's whining when you join a protest because somebody is looking for people "willing to get arrested". When I've protested before, I was never willing to get arrested, but to show my point of view or complain about something I considered unjust.
Sorry, there's is nothing to admire from this guy.
Too funny !!! Now after the howto PLEASE WRITE A FAQ !!!
I respect and admire people who fight for social justice. This guy ain't one of them. Just going to a protest because some guy was looking for people "willing to go to jail" does not a martyr make.
I would feel more for him, if he didn't whine so much about being "harassed" and explained his convictions and purpose for protesting.