"The story... is more about the journey than the destination."
I agree 100 percent. And, as I think about it, I think that it was probably not possible to engineer a conclusion to the story that was really satisfying, at least not if it involved actually reaching a destination. Of course, in my opinion, it certainly didn't help that so many story elements of seeming significance were constructed and, ultimately, not resolved in the manner BSG had typically dealt with things. By that, I mean in terms of human resolutions, and not supernatural/religious ones.
Yes, I know that religious themes existed throughout the series. I was never a fan of that aspect of the show... in particular, the parts dealing with Baltar's religious stuff. Maybe it's different strokes for different folks, and that's fine... but I never dug that stuff, so it is little consolation to me that any of that fed into the ending.
I have read through a lot of postings here in my attempt to synthesize an understanding of the ending that would lead to a greater sense of satisfaction, so that I could walk away from BSG a happier camper. That a few folks have been able to explain/justify some of the show's ending is interesting to me, but it doesn't really improve my opinion of the ending. I'm a fairly smart guy, with eyes and ears and a brain, and I've watched a lot of movies and TV in my day; I know the difference between good movie and TV endings and the not-so-good... seldom do I need to have the good examples explained to me. Perhaps sometimes I gain additional insight from others' explanations, but it just adds to my already-developed opinion. I can't help but conclude that BSG missed the mark to a significant extent... despite whatever merits it had, I think their "wing it" approach to writing the series painted them into a corner they couldn't get out of without resorting to something that basically smells like deus ex machina, even if it doesn't meet all of the criteria in some strict sense.
Having said all that, I will conclude by saying that, for the most part, I like how they terminated each of the individuals' storylines... the execution, if you will. The acting has always been pretty good, and I was satisfied with that aspect of the finale. It's just the overall sense of story conclusion that left me wanting something different/better.
Ah, 26-100. Even seeing a picture of it brings back memories. "Simson Garfinkel... SUCKS!!!":-)
I don't agree with doing away with the lecture format (though I would certainly do away with lame profs reading from their books like my 2.40 prof did... very lame). I don't know the reasons why people would want to do away with them, nor do I care what they are (don't confuse me with facts on this one)... I just think it would be an unfortunate development.
On both occasions I've visited MIT since graduation, I've peeked inside 26-100, and both times it brought back (somewhat vague) memories of times past. Kind of funny how such things work.
thanks, pita... you're the person i really wanted to hear from, and your answer rings best with what i was thinking it'd be. without wanting to sound critical of your chosen technology, it sounds like (dlp) projection technology sort of glosses over the artifacts associated with scaled sd video, resulting in a subjectively better viewing experience, at least for some folks. kind of similar to how some folks like the warming effect of tubes on harsh-sounding digital music playback. i'm thinking this may indicate suboptimal scaling being used, but this is just guesswork on my part, since i don't have hands-on experience in this area... i still use a 32" 4:3 tv:-) anyway, thanks for your response, and take it easy.
I'm interested in what you've said here. Do you think decently-scaled SD looks good more commonly on DLP sets than on LCD sets because of some inherent superiority of DLP vs. LCD re: SD? Or because built-in scalers on DLP sets might be better on average than those found in LCD sets? I'm sold on the idea of better scaling leading to better SD PQ, and I'm generally sold on the advantages of a dedicated, outboard scaler, but I'm not well-informed on the possible advantages of one display technology over another when it comes to SD PQ, so any further information you can provide on this would be appreciated.
Please feel free to email me directly, if you think this is too OT for this thread.
This is where design validation comes in. For those not familiar with this term in the context of system engineering (and, in particular, system engineering of complex aerospace/defense systems), design validation generally refers to the activity whose purpose is to show that a design actually meets the customer's needs (i.e., that it is a 'valid' design). The effort takes design requirements into consideration, of course, but should also make use of system modelling based on the design, among other inputs.
Assuming the statement of work includes support for design validation, and the team doing the validation is competent, a lot of the risk of incomplete requirements can be mitigated, at least in theory. However, the engineering of complex, never-been-done-before systems always has associated 'escape' risks. A lot will depend on how the development effort is phased, and whether or not sufficient system engineering is performed up front, with sufficient lead time to modify/add to the design without severely negatively affecting the overall development in terms of cost or schedule.
In the end, of course, dealing with a competent and ethical development group is key. In my opinion, the contracts folks shouldn't "get in the way" of doing the right thing if problems surface. But in today's world, with today's financial sensitivities--and today's ethics--there are risks.
Although it didn't do well at the box office, I kind of liked the movie Impostor, based on PKD's short story The Impostor. I haven't read the short story, but according to a user comment at IMDb, apparently the movie tracked the short story better than other PKD-inspired movies have thier sources.
Anyway, you might check this one out, too, if you haven't already.
Hi. Thanks for your post; it brought back some memories from my youth. I agree, the book had a lot of stuff that would've been cool to see in the movie (and not just more of the gun). But from my memory of the book, a lot of it probably would've given the movie an "R" rating. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that it was only PG as it was. But things were different back in '76.
I still enjoy watching the movie to this day, though. Perhaps this is because it holds a special place in my heart... it was the first movie in which I ever saw a fully naked woman... and I mean fully!... and Jenny Agutter at that! Rowrr. At age 12, that makes an indelible impression.:-)
Okay, we're definitely getting off topic here, but you've piqued my curiosity with your statements. Do you have any pointers to information that substantiates your claims? I'd be interested in that, and it's probably only fair you post that if you're going to put such claims out there on a public forum. (Please note, I am not disputing what you're saying.)
LOL, dude. Now you don't have to be that hard on yourself.:-)
It is nice to see someone who's capable of apology, though. You don't see much humility on Slashdot, or the Internet, these days. Like the Rev. Rodney King once said, "Can't we all just get a lawn?":-)
I do like your use of "fucktard"... one of my favourite words. Though I prefer to use it on others.:-)
Take it easy, man.
P.S.: I visited Intel's web site and struggled through their writeup on the threading tools. As a potential customer and user of those tools, I must say that they need to do a better job of presenting them to people. Having said that, it seems to me that most of the compiler documentation is rather weak in comparison to, say, the core processor-related documentation. They really could use an editor in the software tools group.
In a post below this, I defended your original position to another poster (not that you asked me to), but here I have to say something to you. I think you're incorrectly wailing on geekoid here; I believe he is commenting on presearch's comments, not yours (check the indents). In other words, he was coming to your aid, in a way.
"All he/she is informing us of is his/her ignorance. There's nothing wrong with being unaware of threading concepts, but please don't suggest there's something wrong with things you just don't understand."
I think you're missing the point Doctor Memory is making. The sense I'm getting is that he isn't criticizing the technical correctness so much as the quality of the writing. He has come to expect decent writing from Intel (as have I, for that matter) and is simply pointing out how what he read didn't seem to meet that expectation (and I agree there, too).
From your post, I gather that English is not your first language. Either that, or your skills are only so-so. In any case, it is clear that Doctor Memory's English skills are substantially superior to yours. That you are willing to overlook flaws in the writing (assuming you recognize the flaws) is fine for you, but has little to do with the inherent quality of the writing, which can be important to others.
If this were the real world, I think you'd owe Doctor Memory an apology.
Slashdot Mirror
My first thought on reading the post was "Battlezone".
Ugh... "tongue-in-cheek" and "enemas" in the same sentence.
And yet another whoosh.
whoosh.
Thats "possessive." :-)
"The story ... is more about the journey than the destination."
I agree 100 percent. And, as I think about it, I think that it was probably not possible to engineer a conclusion to the story that was really satisfying, at least not if it involved actually reaching a destination. Of course, in my opinion, it certainly didn't help that so many story elements of seeming significance were constructed and, ultimately, not resolved in the manner BSG had typically dealt with things. By that, I mean in terms of human resolutions, and not supernatural/religious ones.
Yes, I know that religious themes existed throughout the series. I was never a fan of that aspect of the show... in particular, the parts dealing with Baltar's religious stuff. Maybe it's different strokes for different folks, and that's fine... but I never dug that stuff, so it is little consolation to me that any of that fed into the ending.
I have read through a lot of postings here in my attempt to synthesize an understanding of the ending that would lead to a greater sense of satisfaction, so that I could walk away from BSG a happier camper. That a few folks have been able to explain/justify some of the show's ending is interesting to me, but it doesn't really improve my opinion of the ending. I'm a fairly smart guy, with eyes and ears and a brain, and I've watched a lot of movies and TV in my day; I know the difference between good movie and TV endings and the not-so-good... seldom do I need to have the good examples explained to me. Perhaps sometimes I gain additional insight from others' explanations, but it just adds to my already-developed opinion. I can't help but conclude that BSG missed the mark to a significant extent... despite whatever merits it had, I think their "wing it" approach to writing the series painted them into a corner they couldn't get out of without resorting to something that basically smells like deus ex machina, even if it doesn't meet all of the criteria in some strict sense.
Having said all that, I will conclude by saying that, for the most part, I like how they terminated each of the individuals' storylines... the execution, if you will. The acting has always been pretty good, and I was satisfied with that aspect of the finale. It's just the overall sense of story conclusion that left me wanting something different/better.
"What one man can do, another can do."
Ah, 26-100. Even seeing a picture of it brings back memories. "Simson Garfinkel... SUCKS!!!" :-)
I don't agree with doing away with the lecture format (though I would certainly do away with lame profs reading from their books like my 2.40 prof did... very lame). I don't know the reasons why people would want to do away with them, nor do I care what they are (don't confuse me with facts on this one)... I just think it would be an unfortunate development.
On both occasions I've visited MIT since graduation, I've peeked inside 26-100, and both times it brought back (somewhat vague) memories of times past. Kind of funny how such things work.
Take it easy.
thanks, pita... you're the person i really wanted to hear from, and your answer rings best with what i was thinking it'd be. without wanting to sound critical of your chosen technology, it sounds like (dlp) projection technology sort of glosses over the artifacts associated with scaled sd video, resulting in a subjectively better viewing experience, at least for some folks. kind of similar to how some folks like the warming effect of tubes on harsh-sounding digital music playback. i'm thinking this may indicate suboptimal scaling being used, but this is just guesswork on my part, since i don't have hands-on experience in this area... i still use a 32" 4:3 tv :-) anyway, thanks for your response, and take it easy.
I'm interested in what you've said here. Do you think decently-scaled SD looks good more commonly on DLP sets than on LCD sets because of some inherent superiority of DLP vs. LCD re: SD? Or because built-in scalers on DLP sets might be better on average than those found in LCD sets? I'm sold on the idea of better scaling leading to better SD PQ, and I'm generally sold on the advantages of a dedicated, outboard scaler, but I'm not well-informed on the possible advantages of one display technology over another when it comes to SD PQ, so any further information you can provide on this would be appreciated.
Please feel free to email me directly, if you think this is too OT for this thread.
Later.
... or, presumably, at least water tight. :-)
... content which can be used to fill the holes.
I got your content right here!
You bring up an interesting idea.
This is where design validation comes in. For those not familiar with this term in the context of system engineering (and, in particular, system engineering of complex aerospace/defense systems), design validation generally refers to the activity whose purpose is to show that a design actually meets the customer's needs (i.e., that it is a 'valid' design). The effort takes design requirements into consideration, of course, but should also make use of system modelling based on the design, among other inputs.
Assuming the statement of work includes support for design validation, and the team doing the validation is competent, a lot of the risk of incomplete requirements can be mitigated, at least in theory. However, the engineering of complex, never-been-done-before systems always has associated 'escape' risks. A lot will depend on how the development effort is phased, and whether or not sufficient system engineering is performed up front, with sufficient lead time to modify/add to the design without severely negatively affecting the overall development in terms of cost or schedule.
In the end, of course, dealing with a competent and ethical development group is key. In my opinion, the contracts folks shouldn't "get in the way" of doing the right thing if problems surface. But in today's world, with today's financial sensitivities--and today's ethics--there are risks.
Way to go, dude. I can't say I had the same luck... what's your approach? C'mon, help a brother out.... :-)
In terms of the guy with an audience, I was that guy at my neighborhood Bob's Big Boy... and it was a fun time had by all.
Although it didn't do well at the box office, I kind of liked the movie Impostor, based on PKD's short story The Impostor. I haven't read the short story, but according to a user comment at IMDb, apparently the movie tracked the short story better than other PKD-inspired movies have thier sources.
Anyway, you might check this one out, too, if you haven't already.
Take it easy.
Hi. Thanks for your post; it brought back some memories from my youth. I agree, the book had a lot of stuff that would've been cool to see in the movie (and not just more of the gun). But from my memory of the book, a lot of it probably would've given the movie an "R" rating. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that it was only PG as it was. But things were different back in '76.
:-)
I still enjoy watching the movie to this day, though. Perhaps this is because it holds a special place in my heart... it was the first movie in which I ever saw a fully naked woman... and I mean fully!... and Jenny Agutter at that! Rowrr. At age 12, that makes an indelible impression.
Take it easy.
While I'm suggesting places to look for info on this, I'll also suggest A&I: http://www.aandi.com/
Take it easy.
Okay, we're definitely getting off topic here, but you've piqued my curiosity with your statements. Do you have any pointers to information that substantiates your claims? I'd be interested in that, and it's probably only fair you post that if you're going to put such claims out there on a public forum. (Please note, I am not disputing what you're saying.)
I suggest you check out this site: http://www.westcoastimaging.com/
These guys seem to know their stuff, work with top-quality equipment, and provide a lot of information relevant to producing high-quality prints.
Take it easy.
LOL, dude. Now you don't have to be that hard on yourself. :-)
:-)
:-)
It is nice to see someone who's capable of apology, though. You don't see much humility on Slashdot, or the Internet, these days. Like the Rev. Rodney King once said, "Can't we all just get a lawn?"
I do like your use of "fucktard"... one of my favourite words. Though I prefer to use it on others.
Take it easy, man.
P.S.: I visited Intel's web site and struggled through their writeup on the threading tools. As a potential customer and user of those tools, I must say that they need to do a better job of presenting them to people. Having said that, it seems to me that most of the compiler documentation is rather weak in comparison to, say, the core processor-related documentation. They really could use an editor in the software tools group.
Hi, Doctor Memory.
In a post below this, I defended your original position to another poster (not that you asked me to), but here I have to say something to you. I think you're incorrectly wailing on geekoid here; I believe he is commenting on presearch's comments, not yours (check the indents). In other words, he was coming to your aid, in a way.
Take it easy.
"Please mod the writer down."
Please do not mod the writer down.
"All he/she is informing us of is his/her ignorance. There's nothing wrong with being unaware of threading concepts, but please don't suggest there's something wrong with things you just don't understand."
I think you're missing the point Doctor Memory is making. The sense I'm getting is that he isn't criticizing the technical correctness so much as the quality of the writing. He has come to expect decent writing from Intel (as have I, for that matter) and is simply pointing out how what he read didn't seem to meet that expectation (and I agree there, too).
From your post, I gather that English is not your first language. Either that, or your skills are only so-so. In any case, it is clear that Doctor Memory's English skills are substantially superior to yours. That you are willing to overlook flaws in the writing (assuming you recognize the flaws) is fine for you, but has little to do with the inherent quality of the writing, which can be important to others.
If this were the real world, I think you'd owe Doctor Memory an apology.
Take it easy.
Butters, goddammit!
When I read this part of the subject post, I read it as Mona Lisa's feces! Eek.
Okay, I feel better now for having shared. Thank you, sir, for putting up with me.