It's like taking your Intel chip, soldering over some pads to multiply unlock it, and then selling it. I doubt Intel would be very happy with you using their trademark to sell thier modified chips
Well. Gosh. D'ya think. hey, wait, that's exactly what I said.
Nice try, but that's not a comparable situation. CentOS can't brand their distribution with the name of someone else's distribution. The can, however, describe it as Linux based because Linux isn't a distribution, it's a kernel.
Similarly, I can't call my new chip "Intel iGaz", but I if I build a PC containing a genuine Intel chip, I can describe it as such. In short, I can use the brands of the components from which my product is made, but not the brands of directly competing products.
Nonsense. If you've got a $million in revenue, and your profit margin is the cost of about $1/8 of a developer, you're either a new startup, or you're screwed.
$5k will buy you less than 6 weeks work from even the lousiest freelance coder, and if you don't think the right to leverage a well known trademark isn't worth to you, you'll need to employ some marketing personnel too.
Meanwhile, back in the reality occupied by people who are aware of how trademark law operates:
Guy: "Hi, I'm using Ubuntu OS" Otherguy: "What's that?" Guy: It's a Linux distribuition. See here on the packet where it says "Powered By Linux"... Otherguy: Oh, cool
... it's "only" the phase velocity. This has been done before, and, since information is carried at the group velocity, there aren't any serious "light-cone" repercussions for Einsteinian limits on causality.
So the fact that this occurred only reinforces the supposition that it could not, in fact, happen on accident.
NO. It says nothing about whether this may or may not've happened by accident. It says that designed life is possible, but no scientitst ever doubted that. The fact that life can be designed tells us nothing about whether it actually was or not. And the vast majority of the evidence still points to "not".
No. Not 'kay. Because it's all claptrap... The world designed and controlled by computers is a lovely Maguffin -- a cute conceit around which the first film is based. But as soon as you start to examine it in any detail it starts to fall apart, essentially because it was never designed to be an internally coherent design, it was a set-up around which to build a groovy chop-socky movie. As has been noted, it's tricky to build a world that doesn't fall apart two days later.
All this talk of remainders, and irrational numbers and choice... they're Midichlorians. In Star Wars 4,5,6 we don't care how The Force works -- we suspend our disbelief because we're happy to go along for the ride.
After that the mythos becomes more important than the movie, and more and more exposition is used trying to explain the backgound. And, because the background has not been built from the ground up (and why should it it's just a MacGuffin) that's not possible.
So what your left with is a film that's neither an enjoyable romp (because it takes itself far too seriously, and indulges in endless portentous, unlistenable dialogue) or a coherent philosophical work (because it's "philosophy" -- such as it is -- has been built from the top down, and lacks any sort of coherent foundation). The W's were unsatisfied with simply making a good film, but the so-called philosophical theory has been tacked on later, and the combination is, inevitably, an ugly mess.
I hope that maybe now you can have a better understanding of the movie because of this analysis of but one line in the movie.
I certainly have a better understanding of your understanding of the movie. Is that close enough. My understanding of the actual movie as mutable, protean pseudo-babble, so densely abstrusely packed with arbitrary symbolism as to be completely meaningless (and yet capable of being interpreted in a million ways by anyone with enough free time) has actually been strengthened.
Shakespeare wrote plays in poetry. His dialogue was artificial, but brilliant. Dialogue in the Matrix 2&3 is artifical and godawful. It's not really a valid comparison.
As to Star Wars, the dialogue is largely shit, but no-one (sane) is holding those up as great and meaningful works of philosophy. If they were, I'd take the piss just as much. The initial Star Wars trilogy, like Matrix I, are great escapist entertainment, and can be enjoyed on that level. Shakespeare is great poetry and philosophy, and sometimes entertainment.
The equation is a summation (sigma) of the remainders of some sort of function that approaches infinity. What it describes? Many possibilities. Most likely an irrational number. Why it's unbalanced? Because one can never really determine the value of an irrational number.
Nothing you've written there has any meaning. Why is Neo like an irrational number? Why are irrational numbers important in this context? That's not philosophical, it's just enigmatic.
That is a very postmodernist ideal, to just have an artistic form without explaining a DAMN BIT of it.
It's also a total cop-out.
And the fact that there are so many interpretations enhances the Matrix's artistic quality
No it doesn't. It just denies (and nullifies) any interesting artistic statement the W's wanted to make.
I appreciate that there's a school of thought that says otherwise, but IMHO, an artistic work is only as interesting as the ideas put into it by it's creator. Otherwise, it's about as worthwhile an intellectual pursuit as looking for familiar shapes in the formations of clouds. Anyone can randomly scatter unconnected imagery, unless there's a coherent thought process behind it, what's the damn point?
your life is the sum of the remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix..." - this actually makes sense:-D
Actually, that's a brilliant example of something that sounds like it's deep... and can superficially convince someone that it's meaningful, but isn't. Why's it inherent to the Matrix? What's the equation? What does the equation describe? Why is it unbalanced? What does "remainder" mean in this context?
People read all sorts into the Merovingian and the trainman, but in terms of the development of the plot, they're ciphers. They don't have characters to speak of, there's no personality. They talk in nonsense riddles and aphorisms, particularly of the pseudo-intellectual type that appeal to teenagers. (The fact that teenagers can bolster they're intellectual superiority complex at the same time doesn't do any harm). These characters (and I use the term loosely) fake depth but ultimately they serve no purpose but to get us to the next overlong fight sequence, and to point our heroes into the direction of the next cliche spouting one-dimensional plot device. Never has the phrase "Deus Ex Machina" been more appropriate.
Sure, they're archetypes -- and the W's show they at least have some understanding of the major archtypes of fiction -- but they're so monstrosly lazily used. The reason there's so much being read into Matrix 2&3 is not because it's deep, but because it's shallow. Well constructed, thoughtful fiction, doesn't admit 700 different -- and frequently contradictory -- interpretations.
It's an horrendous mish mash of received wisdom, half understood ideas (which are never explored in any depth), superficial symbolism and pseudo intellectual guff.
And the action sequences simply aren't that great.
"The Matrix", on the other hand, was simple, coherent and groundbreaking.
Usually "to accomodate post production" means "while we try and fix the uncomprehensible mess the director has shown us." Given the provenance, that's far more likely (have you tried to watch Matrix Revolutions without laughing?)
No. I like plots that make sense, dialogue that actually sounds like people talk, and I don't like pointless 30 minute action sequences that fail to advance the already threadbare plot. Oh, and a lead actor who can actually act wouldn't go amiss.
It's not just a tagline. It's a bit of terrorism related doggerel known to every British schoolkid.
Remember remember the 5th of November Gunpowder, treason and plot I see no reason Why gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot.
The V comic book was great -- this film will suck because the Wachowskis are hacks, living it large off one good film (albeit one with an obvious and portentious, pretentious dialofue carried by its special effects).
... plans are afoot for Microsoft to co-opt RSS and rename it "web feeds"[from El Reg, so take it with a pinch of snuff]. Now, that is a better name, but it wouldn't be the first time that some incompatible variations got added to an open standard during this process (*cough* Kerberos).
... you've been reading slashdot too long when you immediately read the last word of the headline as "Patents". Sure, "at risk patents" doesn't make much sense, but again... you get used to incomprehensible headlines, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternatively, copy your working libc, then point $LD_PRELOAD to it whenever you're doing anything. There's nothing magic about the path /lib/libc.so.*
Nice try, but that's not a comparable situation. CentOS can't brand their distribution with the name of someone else's distribution. The can, however, describe it as Linux based because Linux isn't a distribution, it's a kernel.
Similarly, I can't call my new chip "Intel iGaz", but I if I build a PC containing a genuine Intel chip, I can describe it as such. In short, I can use the brands of the components from which my product is made, but not the brands of directly competing products.
Capiche?
Nonsense. If you've got a $million in revenue, and your profit margin is the cost of about $1/8 of a developer, you're either a new startup, or you're screwed.
$5k will buy you less than 6 weeks work from even the lousiest freelance coder, and if you don't think the right to leverage a well known trademark isn't worth to you, you'll need to employ some marketing personnel too.
Yeah. What he said.
Meanwhile, back in the reality occupied by people who are aware of how trademark law operates:
Guy: "Hi, I'm using Ubuntu OS"
Otherguy: "What's that?"
Guy: It's a Linux distribuition. See here on the packet where it says "Powered By Linux"...
Otherguy: Oh, cool
$1000? For all the good that bit of cheap kit is going to do, he might as well shove it up his arse.
Slashdot has found a way to sneak adverts past AdBlock... Disguise them as articles!
... it's "only" the phase velocity. This has been done before, and, since information is carried at the group velocity, there aren't any serious "light-cone" repercussions for Einsteinian limits on causality.
No. Not 'kay. Because it's all claptrap... The world designed and controlled by computers is a lovely Maguffin -- a cute conceit around which the first film is based. But as soon as you start to examine it in any detail it starts to fall apart, essentially because it was never designed to be an internally coherent design, it was a set-up around which to build a groovy chop-socky movie. As has been noted, it's tricky to build a world that doesn't fall apart two days later.
All this talk of remainders, and irrational numbers and choice... they're Midichlorians. In Star Wars 4,5,6 we don't care how The Force works -- we suspend our disbelief because we're happy to go along for the ride.
After that the mythos becomes more important than the movie, and more and more exposition is used trying to explain the backgound. And, because the background has not been built from the ground up (and why should it it's just a MacGuffin) that's not possible.
So what your left with is a film that's neither an enjoyable romp (because it takes itself far too seriously, and indulges in endless portentous, unlistenable dialogue) or a coherent philosophical work (because it's "philosophy" -- such as it is -- has been built from the top down, and lacks any sort of coherent foundation). The W's were unsatisfied with simply making a good film, but the so-called philosophical theory has been tacked on later, and the combination is, inevitably, an ugly mess.
Shakespeare wrote plays in poetry. His dialogue was artificial, but brilliant. Dialogue in the Matrix 2&3 is artifical and godawful. It's not really a valid comparison.
As to Star Wars, the dialogue is largely shit, but no-one (sane) is holding those up as great and meaningful works of philosophy. If they were, I'd take the piss just as much. The initial Star Wars trilogy, like Matrix I, are great escapist entertainment, and can be enjoyed on that level. Shakespeare is great poetry and philosophy, and sometimes entertainment.
Matrix 2&3 are simply none of the above.
The defence rests, yr honour.
I appreciate that there's a school of thought that says otherwise, but IMHO, an artistic work is only as interesting as the ideas put into it by it's creator. Otherwise, it's about as worthwhile an intellectual pursuit as looking for familiar shapes in the formations of clouds. Anyone can randomly scatter unconnected imagery, unless there's a coherent thought process behind it, what's the damn point?
Let's face it, there hasn't been a major breakthrough in chip design since Lays produced their first prototype of the "crinkle cut".
All the time. And it's easy, because they're organised into neat sections. I can find things very easily. Software is no substitute for organisation.
People read all sorts into the Merovingian and the trainman, but in terms of the development of the plot, they're ciphers. They don't have characters to speak of, there's no personality. They talk in nonsense riddles and aphorisms, particularly of the pseudo-intellectual type that appeal to teenagers. (The fact that teenagers can bolster they're intellectual superiority complex at the same time doesn't do any harm). These characters (and I use the term loosely) fake depth but ultimately they serve no purpose but to get us to the next overlong fight sequence, and to point our heroes into the direction of the next cliche spouting one-dimensional plot device. Never has the phrase "Deus Ex Machina" been more appropriate.
Sure, they're archetypes -- and the W's show they at least have some understanding of the major archtypes of fiction -- but they're so monstrosly lazily used. The reason there's so much being read into Matrix 2&3 is not because it's deep, but because it's shallow. Well constructed, thoughtful fiction, doesn't admit 700 different -- and frequently contradictory -- interpretations.
It's an horrendous mish mash of received wisdom, half understood ideas (which are never explored in any depth), superficial symbolism and pseudo intellectual guff.
And the action sequences simply aren't that great.
"The Matrix", on the other hand, was simple, coherent and groundbreaking.
Usually "to accomodate post production" means "while we try and fix the uncomprehensible mess the director has shown us." Given the provenance, that's far more likely (have you tried to watch Matrix Revolutions without laughing?)
It's not just a tagline. It's a bit of terrorism related doggerel known to every British schoolkid.
Remember remember the 5th of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
The V comic book was great -- this film will suck because the Wachowskis are hacks, living it large off one good film (albeit one with an obvious and portentious, pretentious dialofue carried by its special effects).
... plans are afoot for Microsoft to co-opt RSS and rename it "web feeds"[from El Reg, so take it with a pinch of snuff]. Now, that is a better name, but it wouldn't be the first time that some incompatible variations got added to an open standard during this process (*cough* Kerberos).
... you've been reading slashdot too long when you immediately read the last word of the headline as "Patents". Sure, "at risk patents" doesn't make much sense, but again... you get used to incomprehensible headlines, too.