First, I think this movie is one of the best ever released. To understand that, you might also have to understand that The Matrix was my favorite film of all time. Extremely intelligent dialog, extremely complex choreography and cinematography, and extremely astonishing eye candy... Orgasm on screen.
Speaking of which, the only thing that takes away from Reloaded in my opinion is the orgy scene, if I may call it that. I think it was much too long and allowed to much attention to be diverted away from Neo and Trinity. That scene needed to focus on those two and leave most (if not all) of the rest of it out and been about three minutes shorter. Let Neo and Trinity have their moment, let Neo have his dream, and get it over with... I could tell upon first viewing that I would probably be skipping that scene when I watch it on DVD months down the road.
Otherwise, the movie absolutely kicked ass. The Agent Smith teaser footage from the trailers was only the tip of the iceberg, and... well, it's a modern epic, bypassing the classic medium (literature) and jumping onto the big screen. I wouldn't compare the Wachowskis to Homer, Dante, or even Tolkien (not much, anyway), but they've put together quite a masterpiece for our time.
Great movie. 9.7/10.
(The Matrix still gets a perfect 10; Reloaded loses fractions of a point for the orgy scene and for slight cheesiness and predictability -- nothing to worry about. This movie rocked, and only Lord of the Rings films, Office Space, The Shawshank Redemption, and American Beauty otherwise get 9's on my scale...)
The passage you quoted from Fishburne's monologue is why I quoted that selection. And I agree with you fully. Sure, The Matrix has a lot to do with Christianity and can serve as a Christian allegory -- so can The Lord of the Rings. But as J.R.R. Tolkien authoritatively explained, his work is not a Christian allegory by design. It is a new story first, and it is certainly applicable to other things to be tied in. But to say that he borrowed from anything and everything that remotely compares to his story is to call his work unoriginal...
So, two questions:
(1) Does anyone really believe that the stories of The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings are unoriginal?
(2) If yes, then is there really any such thing as originality, are is every "new" idea just an evolution/combination of the old ones?
Gimme Carrie-Ann, vinyl trenchcoats, automatic weapons, a hundred Agent Smiths, some wacked out over-the-top Martial Arts, and a big tub of p-corn and I'm happy to suspend my belief. Just don't expect me to gain any insight into my Belief in the process.
Fair enough. But don't knock those of us who are students of philosophy and who do enjoy analyzing facets of pop culture to death when applicable. And, if you really want to get into it, there's a deeper meaning to Carrie-Anne's leathery, badass look than you think...
Of course, it's all interpretive, which is entirely the point. You don't have to believe any more than you want to believe, which, in a roundabout way, is an idea supported by the movie.
p.s.-- I am not going to see this movie for its insights and socio-politico-philosophical commentary. It's got nothing to do with enlightenment and everything to do with kickass plots, fights, effects... It's an audio-visual orgasm on screen. The rest comes later.
Like earning high marks at school, being elected Student Government President, working part-time, and kissing my girlfriend on a regular basis. Yes, definitely more to life than reading about The Matrix. Thanks for the insight!;-)
All any movie really needs is something to connect to its audience! (Oh, wait...)
And, finally, this "formula" is completely biased. It assumes that every moviemaker is a sellout. Clerks was one of the greatest films ever created... but where was the action? the special effect? the movie ticket sales? Besides, where's the innovation in following a formula? Making up your own (2001: A Space Odyssey) trumps following the leader...
Kevin Smith movies stand to prove something: that there is only one absolute truth; this is absolutely true.
I haven't read The Gospel According to Neo yet, but I've thumbed through it. (It sits on my shelf, and I'm currently involved in William Irwin's The Matrix and Philosophy -- great book!)
Switching gears... In an interview released today over at Coming Soon, Lawrence Fishburne gives a pretty detailed account of (some of) his experience with The Matrix and playing Morpheus.
What was it about the first film that struck the chord with so many people? There's a lot of things, and I think the major thing is that in crafting their story and structuring their story, the Wachowski brothers relied heavily on Greek mythology and primarily the old myths: the hero's journey, the reluctant messiah story, which is one of the oldest stories and has been with us in every culture, in every time in some way or form. And they basically put it in a modern context...
WARNING: The interview may spoil some minor plot details near the bottom -- the first six paragraphs are safe. When it gets to "Early audiences are already getting a different sense...", you might consider waiting a day or two to see the movie and then catch up on what he had to say about his character.
What about Personal News Blogs? Sites that originate and aggregate news stories that are run by a single person and, in the case of op-eds, from that person's point of view? An example: my site, crash.neotope.com (the title changes like the wind, so "crash.neotope.com" suffices). Lately it's become almost entirely personal, but before the war in Iraq resumed I had essentially been a news reporter for several months.
Of course, I'm not linked to very much because, despite my site's static position on the web, I haven't tried to advertise or commercialize in the least.
Okay, so mine's a bad example -- it's a personal blog. But hybrids are out there...
are the young geeks gonna learn that a semester does not a philosopher/poet/thinker make?
What about an associate's degree in philosophy, a bachelor's in political science, and a master's in economics, plus readings of dozens upon dozens of texts -- contemporary and classical -- on the matter(s)? I think the keys to being a philosopher are (1) to keep an open mind and be aware that "I might be wrong just because I can not prove that I am right", and (2) a general disregard for the status quo (or else why would you care to think about things so much?).
...remove them from the normal index, handling them instead in much the same way as their usenet archives...
One would think that the Google blog search would work more similarly to the Google News search, which searches headlines from online news publications all over the web from all over the world. Google Groups is, as you know, just usenet... Google News, however, like the new Google blog search, will be indexing sites on the world wide web (ostensibly removed from the normal index).
Ehh, the point of this message is to inform the uninformed of the wonderfulness of Google News. It automatically features prominent headlines from all over the web, and you can search for topics, keywords, etc. in the search bar and have results sorted by relevance or date. News articles are mostly excluded from the normal index, which makes Google News the best headline locator on the Internet, by far.
Thomas Malthus, a political economist around the turn of the 19th century (lived 1766-1834), predicted that man would eventually use the world's resources before our needs were served, and the entire world would be driven into poverty. (See his Essay on the Principle of Population, in which this theory is very thoroughly discussed. For more on Malthus, see Google search results.)
Of course, during his time, he had no idea that technology would ever develop at the pace that it did in the 20th century and that it will in the 21st century. On the other hand, even if he could imagine such unimaginable technological growth rates as we have seen in the last hundred years, no one from his time could imagine such prohibitive measures being taken to prevent technological advancement in today's world.
The popular opinion regarding Malthusian theory of economic growth is that Malthus had it backwards -- his prediction that man's consumption would strip the earth of its resources failed to consider (1) technological growth and (2) that man's wants and needs evolve as well as anything else. In other words, as our resources change, our wants and needs are at least partially shaped by what we can possibly provide. We adjust to the environment in which we live. (Agent Smith says, "There is another organism on this planet...")
The question I would like to pose to Slashdot's readership is this: To what degree was Malthus right considering man's habits of mass consumption and self-imposed barriers to innovation such as copyright laws, and to what degree was Malthus wrong considering technological and other innovations? (Hmm. Ask Slashdot?)
Using demographic information in that way -- "to tweak future tests" -- only boils down to racial discrimination. I don't stand with that within my own family, so I sure as hell won't sit for it on a test that most of the educated (American) world must take.
When taking the PSAT during my sophomore year in high school, I decided that the school didn't need to know my ethnic origin, whether the information was gathered for statistican purposes only or not. The choices were typical (White/Caucasian, Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, etc...), and there was a seventh blank marked "Other", suggesting anyone of any ethnicity not listed to list their brand name. I thought I did a very noble thing for a white boy in urban central Georgia, and I checked the "Other" box and wrote in, "I'm human. What does it matter?"
The test proctor, a Geometry teacher, didn't like this very much and sent me to the principal's office. I gladly took my test answer sheet up to the principal's office and told them the story I wrote here. The principal took the answer sheet and showed it to a couple of people around the office, presumably to get second and third (reinforcing) opinions, and then returned the test sheet to me and told me to get back to class, finish the test, "and if she has any further problem with this, send her to me."
My first reaction was, whoa, "send her to you"?! I don't have that authority. She made me understand that I had done nothing wrong and should definitely not be punished for it. (To be honest, I do not remember if my main purpose was to be a smartass or to promote social colorblind-ness, but it shouldn't matter if anyone reads it properly.)
Anyway, the moral of this story is: if you let them get used to you simply falling into line and always doing the expected thing, you get locked into it. On the other hand, if you let them know you're just less than predictable, and perhaps even a bit crazy or eccentric, then you can get away with much more and even get them to think harder about things. I succeeded that day, and my ego swelled from that of a skinny, nerdy white boy into that of a taller, more confident, skinny, nerdy white boy.:-)
p.s.-- my favorite line from Colin Fahey's site:
So, in this latest experience, when I worked very hard to determine the correct answer for each question, and then proceeded to pick the exact WRONG answer (in fact, the most RIDICULOUS answer), I had a very strong emotional reaction. For a while I worried that this new peculiar feeling of freedom was in fact insanity; I was finally making the transition to madness.
Yeah, I feel that ALL the time. Marching to the beat of a different drum is liberating, but self-liberation is viewed as insanity until it catches on...
I don't mean to question your pseudo-philosophical opinion, but what movie did you see? Just because the dialog isn't exactly as Decartes or Spinoza or, hell, Ayn Rand would have written it doesn't make the movie any less philosophical.
For that matter, how can anyone justify the argument that anything isn't philosophical? The entire movie is an episode in cultural materialism and skepticism. Sure, it doesn't belong next to anything Aristotle or Nietzsche wrote, but then again, nothing they ever wrote belongs next to the Wachowskis' masterpiece film. The movie is laced with philosophical dialog.
The fact that at least half a dozen books have been written on nothing but the philosophy of The Matrix justifies the claim that, no matter how bad some of us think the philosophical quality of the movie is, the movie is indeed philosophical. I mean, com'on, it raises philosophical questions...
As if Linux, or anything created by man, could be superior to any machine-perfected Matrix operating system... Nice try!
p.s.-- Wouldn't there be compatibility issues? How could hacking into the Matrix possibly be the same if a different OS is installed over the existing one? And what about the billions of human lives relying on the stability of the Matrix to survive?
p.p.s-- Wouldn't Zion's consistent hacking into the Matrix leave imperfections in the code? The perfect operating system is only perfect because it can flawlessly handle billions of plugged-in users at once while perfectly predicting their behaviors both in and outside of the Matrix... Can there be an argument that the Matrix was not built to properly handle intruders via pirated signals?
The first movie set up the Matrix universe and we've asked most of the philosophical questions that are going to be asked. Once the universe has been introduced and the questions are raised, there isn't much more philosophy to bring into it. All they can do now is play with it, which is why Reloadedshould be an action movie -- and the best of all time, I might add, given the hype.
If most of the questions have already been asked, then we can only hope for two things out of this movie: (1) it should generate much more discussion and perhaps a few more questions; (2) the action and special effects should be beyond all we have seen in film before.
(Here is a copy of the press release announcing the Indiana Jones trilogy DVD.)
Before I get started, check OriginalTrilogy.com, a web site dedicated to the preservation of the original theatrical cuts (and eventually have them released on DVD as well, not just the special editions) of the films of the classic Star Wars trilogy. See their FAQ for more information. Signatories number around 29,500 at the moment; 30,000 could be reached within the day!
Now, on with the show...
From September 2001, LucasFilm clarifies that they can not simply jump into a DVD project for the classic Star Wars trilogy. It will take time, but from the hints presented here, it should be worth the wait! (I still think Lucas could make a fortune by releasing *only* the movies, everything we have on VHS so far, as individual titles on DVD.) From the September 2001 feature:
An ever-increasing number of archival projects from other studios are also readying the THX team for a time when Lucas will be available to focus on releasing the classic trilogy on DVD. "We have an advantage that some very great work was done by Rick McCallum and his group back in '97. So we have restored films and we have a lot of work that was put in that first step with the restoration job back then," says Dean.
"I've certainly heard that there's a lot of material that has been in the archives that never has come out. I imagine it will be a very, very long, tedious process to make it work," he speculates. "Frankly, that's why DVD is just not something that you jump into. There is a lot of planning behind that."
Another article from February 2000 expresses more reasons for delaying development of the trilogy's DVD. It seems as though fears of pirated copies of Star Wars films is a major concern, though LucasFilm denied this then. (As technology has improved, I wonder if they would still deny it, or if they would simply deny this as a reason for delaying the DVD project.)
Although about twenty and forty months old, respectively, this is still more information than the StarWars.com FAQ, updated quite frequently, gives:
When will the classic trilogy come out on DVD? The films of the classic trilogy will eventually come out on DVD, but it won't be this year.
Thanks, George. We got that memo.
Last tidbit. According to this FAQ, Natalie Portman may shoot some scenes for the Return of the Jedi DVD, and Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa, Princess Leia's adopted father, who is presumably but not necessarily on planet Alderaan when the Death Star destroys it) may shoot some scenes for the A New Hope DVD.
The worms, C. elegans, share many biological characteristics with humans...
Isn't this true of most animals by the virtue of their presumably conscious existence? What's the fascination with contained worms anyway? You people are such geeks!:-P
Instead of the RIAA IM'ing thousands of individual users, suppose thousands of individual users sent IM's, emails, letters, etc. directly to the RIAA. The movie Hackers may have been farfetched, but the notion of computer-geek solidarity is hardly impossible. The concept of safety in numbers is alive and well, and I wonder just what the RIAA would do if we bombarded them with timely and substantive letters of complaint.
Or couldn't we just start with a bigger hit? The RIAA has been trying to knock out the legal foundation for file sharing for years now. I'm certain that we have a legal defense, but isn't the best defense in some cases a good offense? I say go on the attack and sue the RIAA. (Okay, I lack the knowledge of exactly what the RIAA and other groups can be sued for at this moment, but I have only been following headlines for the last few months. If this is plausible at all, perhaps it will at least generate a little discussion before we don't do anything.)
I can't help but feel the socialist undertones of such legislation. Sure, my selfish and geeky sides want to see it pass like many of the rest of you, but isn't the idea that those who have should share with those who have not (or should at least secure what they have as best they could lest it be legally taken from them) blatantly socialist, and therefore against much of what our Founding Fathers stood for?
I only ask because, as a self-indulgent, self-described individualist, I don't like the idea of being forced into sharing. It should always be voluntary, or the idea of altruism is dead.
The dilemma in comparing the quality of sound versus the filesize of various formats is similar to comparing a car's fuel economy over time at different average speeds. How fast do you want to get there, but how much more gas will that guzzle? The tradeoffs are often miniscule, so what does it matter?
If the music sounds good, why does it matter if the next format over has a slightly better way of going about it? The answer is simple: potential for further innovation and the everlasting impossible quest for perfection. Technological innovation is fun to watch.
FYI, I rip to WAV with AudioCatalyst and encode to MP3 with LAME (vbLAMEr pro frontend) at 192 Kbps for most audio, 256 Kbps for really intense music (techno and/or really loud stuff), and 96 Kbps for voice. This easily serves my musical needs, and it provides a simple pattern to follow when I want to add more music to my computer.
I like what I've heard from OGG so far, but I haven't the experience with it to care to replace any MP3s with it. (Besides, when my car stereo plays MP3s and not OGGs, there is little choice to be made.)
Oh and, um, damn you Slashdot for killing that poor server. I guess I'll read the comparison later.
I accidentally responded to my original comment, but posting as an AC means you won't see this response anyway unless you remember where it was posted. Anyway, see the comment with the URL here.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of which, the only thing that takes away from Reloaded in my opinion is the orgy scene, if I may call it that. I think it was much too long and allowed to much attention to be diverted away from Neo and Trinity. That scene needed to focus on those two and leave most (if not all) of the rest of it out and been about three minutes shorter. Let Neo and Trinity have their moment, let Neo have his dream, and get it over with... I could tell upon first viewing that I would probably be skipping that scene when I watch it on DVD months down the road.
Otherwise, the movie absolutely kicked ass. The Agent Smith teaser footage from the trailers was only the tip of the iceberg, and... well, it's a modern epic, bypassing the classic medium (literature) and jumping onto the big screen. I wouldn't compare the Wachowskis to Homer, Dante, or even Tolkien (not much, anyway), but they've put together quite a masterpiece for our time.
Great movie. 9.7/10.
(The Matrix still gets a perfect 10; Reloaded loses fractions of a point for the orgy scene and for slight cheesiness and predictability -- nothing to worry about. This movie rocked, and only Lord of the Rings films, Office Space, The Shawshank Redemption, and American Beauty otherwise get 9's on my scale...)
So, two questions:
(1) Does anyone really believe that the stories of The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings are unoriginal?
(2) If yes, then is there really any such thing as originality, are is every "new" idea just an evolution/combination of the old ones?
Of course, it's all interpretive, which is entirely the point. You don't have to believe any more than you want to believe, which, in a roundabout way, is an idea supported by the movie.
p.s.-- I am not going to see this movie for its insights and socio-politico-philosophical commentary. It's got nothing to do with enlightenment and everything to do with kickass plots, fights, effects... It's an audio-visual orgasm on screen. The rest comes later.
Like earning high marks at school, being elected Student Government President, working part-time, and kissing my girlfriend on a regular basis. Yes, definitely more to life than reading about The Matrix. Thanks for the insight! ;-)
Thanks! I predict I'll find that site very useful!
All any movie really needs is something to connect to its audience! (Oh, wait...)
And, finally, this "formula" is completely biased. It assumes that every moviemaker is a sellout. Clerks was one of the greatest films ever created... but where was the action? the special effect? the movie ticket sales? Besides, where's the innovation in following a formula? Making up your own (2001: A Space Odyssey) trumps following the leader...
Kevin Smith movies stand to prove something: that there is only one absolute truth; this is absolutely true.
Switching gears... In an interview released today over at Coming Soon, Lawrence Fishburne gives a pretty detailed account of (some of) his experience with The Matrix and playing Morpheus.
WARNING: The interview may spoil some minor plot details near the bottom -- the first six paragraphs are safe. When it gets to "Early audiences are already getting a different sense...", you might consider waiting a day or two to see the movie and then catch up on what he had to say about his character.Of course, I'm not linked to very much because, despite my site's static position on the web, I haven't tried to advertise or commercialize in the least.
Okay, so mine's a bad example -- it's a personal blog. But hybrids are out there...
Ehh, the point of this message is to inform the uninformed of the wonderfulness of Google News. It automatically features prominent headlines from all over the web, and you can search for topics, keywords, etc. in the search bar and have results sorted by relevance or date. News articles are mostly excluded from the normal index, which makes Google News the best headline locator on the Internet, by far.
Of course, during his time, he had no idea that technology would ever develop at the pace that it did in the 20th century and that it will in the 21st century. On the other hand, even if he could imagine such unimaginable technological growth rates as we have seen in the last hundred years, no one from his time could imagine such prohibitive measures being taken to prevent technological advancement in today's world.
The popular opinion regarding Malthusian theory of economic growth is that Malthus had it backwards -- his prediction that man's consumption would strip the earth of its resources failed to consider (1) technological growth and (2) that man's wants and needs evolve as well as anything else. In other words, as our resources change, our wants and needs are at least partially shaped by what we can possibly provide. We adjust to the environment in which we live. (Agent Smith says, "There is another organism on this planet...")
The question I would like to pose to Slashdot's readership is this: To what degree was Malthus right considering man's habits of mass consumption and self-imposed barriers to innovation such as copyright laws, and to what degree was Malthus wrong considering technological and other innovations? (Hmm. Ask Slashdot?)
Using demographic information in that way -- "to tweak future tests" -- only boils down to racial discrimination. I don't stand with that within my own family, so I sure as hell won't sit for it on a test that most of the educated (American) world must take.
The test proctor, a Geometry teacher, didn't like this very much and sent me to the principal's office. I gladly took my test answer sheet up to the principal's office and told them the story I wrote here. The principal took the answer sheet and showed it to a couple of people around the office, presumably to get second and third (reinforcing) opinions, and then returned the test sheet to me and told me to get back to class, finish the test, "and if she has any further problem with this, send her to me."
My first reaction was, whoa, "send her to you"?! I don't have that authority. She made me understand that I had done nothing wrong and should definitely not be punished for it. (To be honest, I do not remember if my main purpose was to be a smartass or to promote social colorblind-ness, but it shouldn't matter if anyone reads it properly.)
Anyway, the moral of this story is: if you let them get used to you simply falling into line and always doing the expected thing, you get locked into it. On the other hand, if you let them know you're just less than predictable, and perhaps even a bit crazy or eccentric, then you can get away with much more and even get them to think harder about things. I succeeded that day, and my ego swelled from that of a skinny, nerdy white boy into that of a taller, more confident, skinny, nerdy white boy. :-)
Yeah, I feel that ALL the time. Marching to the beat of a different drum is liberating, but self-liberation is viewed as insanity until it catches on...p.s.-- my favorite line from Colin Fahey's site:
And I'm not even going to go into the literal meaning of "experience" conflicting with the idea of death...
For that matter, how can anyone justify the argument that anything isn't philosophical? The entire movie is an episode in cultural materialism and skepticism. Sure, it doesn't belong next to anything Aristotle or Nietzsche wrote, but then again, nothing they ever wrote belongs next to the Wachowskis' masterpiece film. The movie is laced with philosophical dialog.
The fact that at least half a dozen books have been written on nothing but the philosophy of The Matrix justifies the claim that, no matter how bad some of us think the philosophical quality of the movie is, the movie is indeed philosophical. I mean, com'on, it raises philosophical questions...
As subtle as leatherclad chicks with guns can be, anyway.
p.s.-- Wouldn't there be compatibility issues? How could hacking into the Matrix possibly be the same if a different OS is installed over the existing one? And what about the billions of human lives relying on the stability of the Matrix to survive?
p.p.s-- Wouldn't Zion's consistent hacking into the Matrix leave imperfections in the code? The perfect operating system is only perfect because it can flawlessly handle billions of plugged-in users at once while perfectly predicting their behaviors both in and outside of the Matrix... Can there be an argument that the Matrix was not built to properly handle intruders via pirated signals?
If most of the questions have already been asked, then we can only hope for two things out of this movie: (1) it should generate much more discussion and perhaps a few more questions; (2) the action and special effects should be beyond all we have seen in film before.
Where are the skeptics?! :-)
Before I get started, check OriginalTrilogy.com, a web site dedicated to the preservation of the original theatrical cuts (and eventually have them released on DVD as well, not just the special editions) of the films of the classic Star Wars trilogy. See their FAQ for more information. Signatories number around 29,500 at the moment; 30,000 could be reached within the day!
Now, on with the show...
From September 2001, LucasFilm clarifies that they can not simply jump into a DVD project for the classic Star Wars trilogy. It will take time, but from the hints presented here, it should be worth the wait! (I still think Lucas could make a fortune by releasing *only* the movies, everything we have on VHS so far, as individual titles on DVD.) From the September 2001 feature: Another article from February 2000 expresses more reasons for delaying development of the trilogy's DVD. It seems as though fears of pirated copies of Star Wars films is a major concern, though LucasFilm denied this then. (As technology has improved, I wonder if they would still deny it, or if they would simply deny this as a reason for delaying the DVD project.)
Although about twenty and forty months old, respectively, this is still more information than the StarWars.com FAQ, updated quite frequently, gives: Thanks, George. We got that memo.
Last tidbit. According to this FAQ, Natalie Portman may shoot some scenes for the Return of the Jedi DVD, and Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa, Princess Leia's adopted father, who is presumably but not necessarily on planet Alderaan when the Death Star destroys it) may shoot some scenes for the A New Hope DVD.
Instead of the RIAA IM'ing thousands of individual users, suppose thousands of individual users sent IM's, emails, letters, etc. directly to the RIAA. The movie Hackers may have been farfetched, but the notion of computer-geek solidarity is hardly impossible. The concept of safety in numbers is alive and well, and I wonder just what the RIAA would do if we bombarded them with timely and substantive letters of complaint.
Or couldn't we just start with a bigger hit? The RIAA has been trying to knock out the legal foundation for file sharing for years now. I'm certain that we have a legal defense, but isn't the best defense in some cases a good offense? I say go on the attack and sue the RIAA. (Okay, I lack the knowledge of exactly what the RIAA and other groups can be sued for at this moment, but I have only been following headlines for the last few months. If this is plausible at all, perhaps it will at least generate a little discussion before we don't do anything.)
I only ask because, as a self-indulgent, self-described individualist, I don't like the idea of being forced into sharing. It should always be voluntary, or the idea of altruism is dead.
If the music sounds good, why does it matter if the next format over has a slightly better way of going about it? The answer is simple: potential for further innovation and the everlasting impossible quest for perfection. Technological innovation is fun to watch.
FYI, I rip to WAV with AudioCatalyst and encode to MP3 with LAME (vbLAMEr pro frontend) at 192 Kbps for most audio, 256 Kbps for really intense music (techno and/or really loud stuff), and 96 Kbps for voice. This easily serves my musical needs, and it provides a simple pattern to follow when I want to add more music to my computer.
I like what I've heard from OGG so far, but I haven't the experience with it to care to replace any MP3s with it. (Besides, when my car stereo plays MP3s and not OGGs, there is little choice to be made.)
Oh and, um, damn you Slashdot for killing that poor server. I guess I'll read the comparison later.
I accidentally responded to my original comment, but posting as an AC means you won't see this response anyway unless you remember where it was posted. Anyway, see the comment with the URL here.
iMovie too, even. Heh.