I am more than twice his age. I love his cartoons.
My Daughter is older than he is and we have spent many, many hours watching his cartoons together.
My parents loved Chuck Jones cartoons, THEIR parents loved Chuck Jones cartoons, my great grand children are certain to love Chuck Jones cartoons.
It's almost impossible to overstate how wonderful the works of Mr. Jones are and their universality is only one of the many attributes that make them that way.
With luck one of the local art theaters will stage a film festival of his work. If you havn't seen them on film, in a theater, you don't even know what they really look like. They are real art.
Hanna and Barbera have a lot to answer for.
I'll never have to miss Chuck. He'll be "alive" as long as humanity is.
To be fair, the cherry tree, silver dollar, and wooden teeth are indeed merely yarns.
The Wright Flyer is not.
The agreement attached to the Wright Flyer has nothing to do with Whitehead, although it may have some effect any claims to be made in his behalf. For Decades the Smithsonian gave the honor of being first to fly to its own director, Langely. Langley's "plane" had no control surfaces, was launched off of a high platform, and "flew" from the top of the tower into the Potomac, killing its pilot.
It was acrimony over this that made Wilbur refuse to give the Wright Flyer to the museum until they recognized the Wrights flew before Langely.
Indeed, Langley's plane didn't so much as fly as *plummet.*
Some years ago an uncle of mine, ( who was taught to fly by Wilbur Wright), was called out of retirement by Grumman to head a team building a replica of the comapany's first plane, for the company museum.
It seems that the *art* of building such a plane had been lost and they needed an 'old timer' to come back and show them how it was done.
If nothing else building replicas of older craft, ( of all kinds), can give a greater understanding of history than you can derive from a book.
At it's best such activities may actually teach you things about history that had been, or were in danger of, being completely lost. Some of these things may, shock of shocks, still be important to know now, and perfectly applicable to entirely modern problems.
I'll second this. Anyone with *any* interest in old planes should go to the Rhinebeck Aerodrome, given any opportunity to do so.
I've been going there since I was a small child, and the late Cole Palen, the founder, gave me my first ride in an open cockpit biplane.
For the sake of accuracy I would point our that all planes older than WW1 are replicas, but are built to extremely tight historical standards.
Some of the WW1 planes are replicas as well, or replicas built around a few orginal parts, such as their Fokker DR1 triplane, of which there are no surviving, intact, examples.
And if you're into flying models every Labor Day weekend they stage one of the largest gatherings of WW1 era R/C planes in the world.
Ummmm, no. For decades the Smithsonian refused to acknowledge the Wrights as the first, giving the honor instead to Langley, former director of the Smithsonian itself.
You're right in that the Smithsonian propogated lies, but you've got the order backwards.
Yeah, I just *knew* someone would point this out. I've personally worn out two vinyl copies of Switched on Bach, and three of Sgt. Pepper.
The digital remastering of Sgt. Pepper actually contains some purely analog sequences because it was impossible to reproduce, even in the studio, some of the effects, even with the surviving original studio tapes.
Even with this sort of music I think my point still stands.
Most music is intended to sound "real."
Most film is not. That's why they shoot on expensive film and not cheap video, and digital "film" will only equal film when the same effects can be done on it.
The same goes for digital photography, and I say this while I sit here and just itch to ditch my film cameras for digital, but I can't.
No, but they do sell Coleman fuel, kerosene, propane, matches, butane, and dozens of other explosives, not only at Target, but at most major supermarkets as well.
There is also, constitutionally, no license needed to speak or publish. Even state secrets. Research the "Pentagon Papers."
Also have a look at the Steve Jackson case, where computers were legally defined as printing and publishing devices and constitutionally illegal to seize, as was all private corespondence by e-mail without a warrant specifically for that piece of mail. The government has no legal right to seize an entire computer. Only copies of those *files* that are directly related to the alleged crime. Your monitor or CPU are NOT evidence, and only evidence, under warrant, may be legally seized. Thus, at *best*, the government can only seize media, such as your hard drive.
The fact that millinos of Americans now believe otherwise is a sad indictment of what we have become.
KFG
There are ten ammendments in the Bill of Rights
on
Raisethefist.com Update
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
True, that is covered by the right to bear arms, also a constitutional right, covered in the second ammendment.
Please note that 'arms' is a generically unlimited term. The current focus on guns is a bit of legal slight of hand. Here in NY state I can walk down Main Street with a rifle and I am in within my legal rights, but the *possesion* of a wrist braced *slingshot* is a felony. This is unconstitutional, but who has the 10 years and $50K to fight it?
One also might wonder just how one goes about 'regeistering' a Molotov cocktail with the
FBI.
Comes to that, my local supermarket is crammed full of petroleum products and explosive devices.
What are they going to do next, ban exothermic chemical reactions?
When I pop in a CD I want to hear the acoustic guitar like the player was sitting in my living room. Music is an auditory art, and for the most part the artist wants you to hear what he hears when he plays it. Music is the art of reality.
Movies are entirely different. Even the physical medium of images are born of a physical phenomenon entirely different than that which produces sounds and the intent of film production is also very different.
The fact of the matter is that in making a film a great deal of trouble is gone to to make sure the audience * does not * see what the director sees. He dosn't want you to see the microphones, the guy on the soundboard or the miles of cable strewn about. All things that seem perfectly natural when watching a live musical performance.
He also dosn't want you to see that that Victorian drawing room is constructed of paper and paste, that the giant tanker tossing about in a hurricane is a 6 ft model in a swimming pool, and he dosn't want you for a minute to realize there are NO spaceships buzzing about like Fokker Triplanes anywhere in this universe.
The phrase "Movie Magic" exists for a reason, because movies and magic are in fact part of the same art.
Movies are about *illusion!*
With all the advances in CG to create illusion on film, the fact of the matter is that, * at the moment*, film still does a better job of presenting this illusion *to the audience* than any digital medium does.
Watching the latest digital effects on DVD and a high resolution monitor tells me that the time will come when that will change.
My brother was projectionist at a local theater. This isn't just any theater, but a 1920's era Vaudville house that's been totally restored and brought up to spec with the latest movie technology.
He invited me to sit in the booth with him one day shortly after the restored theater had gone "online." It was a good, old fashioned movie show. Double feature with a short and a cartoon. The cartoon was the Bugs Bunny about the penguin from Hoboken.
My jaw dropped when it came on. For 20 years I'd only seen Warner Bros. cartoons on TV. I'd forgotten what they really looked like in their native enviroment.
Was it scratched, gritty, with specs of dirt? You bet your ass it was, but. . .
The colors. My God, this was NOTHING like what you can see on TV! The richness, the subtle shadings, the pure ART of the thing floored me.
Only seeing them on TV for 20 years made me forget what they were supposed to look like.
I'll live with the scratches and dirt specs until digital can make Bugs look the way Bugs is supposed to look.
When I go to the theater I don't want to see a big TV. I want to see FILM, light shining directly through a tinted medium.
The point being that you don't need to make the same sales to make much more money.
90% of $100? That's a fraction of what she sells *per appearance.*
How about 90% of $100K, per album, as owner of your own record/publishing company, while retaining full ownership of your own songs, as opposed to signing away all rights to your own songs, selling 1 million albums, going on tour for six months and finding out after all of this that you owe the record company $20K?
What's more, since you signed away all of your rights if anyone covers your songs you recieve *nothing,* ever. In fact, if YOU rerecord your own songs you have to pay for the rights, just like anybody else.
Many bands find that they don't even own their own *name* anymore.
Indeed, but there are only a handful of artists that manage this. Literally.
Most artists end up with a penny or two credited to their "account" and *lose* money on total sales, the pennies never coming close to adding up to the tens of thousands of dollars they are indebted to the record industry for.
New artists who go on tour, in fact, generally *lose* money.
The record company "fronts" the captial for the tour, which the artist is *required* to go on by the terms of their record contract. The average new artist at the end of their first tour are generally surprised to find themselves an additional $10k in debt.
Most never manage to absolve themselves of this debt.
It is only the veteran tourers who make money, just as it only the 'artists' who can string a series of hits together that make money from album sales.
I have a friend who cut an album for Shanachie. Her next album she produced herself. Why?
She wanted to support the "artist."
When someone pays $20 for a CD at Tower if the artist gets a buck of it they're way ahead of the curve.
When Kenny Rogers was riding the country crossover wave he said that it wasn't until he had had five number one hits in a row that he made any money.
When I give my friend only $10 for her self produced CD I get a CD for half the price I would pay in a store, AND I know that $9 of that is profit in her pocket.
I believe in supporting the artist, and when the RIAA records a musical performance I'm willing to hand $10 to them personally for I'd be glad to do so.
Not exactly correct. If a product is guarunteed to solve all of your problems the odds are that it will solve a great many of your problems, but less than optimally.
There will be *some* problems that that it cannot solve at all.
It wall also solve *no* problems optimally.
The same largely applies to any purely mechnical device that claims to be "self adjusting and/or maintainence free." They always are, until they need adjusting or maintainence, which you then discover is impossible.
No, it's not a case of noone thinking of it before. It's simply the case that the engineering skill and knowledge to apply a known basic principle necessarily always lags behind the understanding of the basic physical properties.
Just think about it a minute. You've just discovered a new property of a substance. Does that mean you can just run out and start making new revolutionary things?
No, of course not, you still have to take the time to work out the engineering.
Certainly the most commonly known story of this phenomenon is the invention of the light bulb by Dr. Swan.
Oh, sorry. Most people don't know that story, they know the one about Edison, which actually further illustrates my point.
When a new basic principle is discovered there are generally thousands of people to whom the implications are patently evident, and the race is on to see who gets the credit for exploiting it first.
Swan actually demonstrated his light bulb before Edison did, and if Edison hadn't even bothered to try the light bulb would have been just as available in the exact same time frame. ( By the way, the same thing applies to the idea that Bill Gates is somehow personally responsible for the PC revolution).
But we DO pretty much all know the story of how Edison understood the basic principle involved, and how long it took, and the sacrifices he had to undergo, in order to learn how to *apply* that principle usefully.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. And this sort of thing has been going on long enough that there is even a saying that can be applied to determine whether it is spam or not.
" If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. . . It's a duck"
KFG
I am more than twice his age. I love his cartoons.
My Daughter is older than he is and we have spent many, many hours watching his cartoons together.
My parents loved Chuck Jones cartoons, THEIR parents loved Chuck Jones cartoons, my great grand children are certain to love Chuck Jones cartoons.
It's almost impossible to overstate how wonderful the works of Mr. Jones are and their universality is only one of the many attributes that make them that way.
With luck one of the local art theaters will stage a film festival of his work. If you havn't seen them on film, in a theater, you don't even know what they really look like. They are real art.
Hanna and Barbera have a lot to answer for.
I'll never have to miss Chuck. He'll be "alive" as long as humanity is.
KFG
To be fair, the cherry tree, silver dollar, and wooden teeth are indeed merely yarns.
The Wright Flyer is not.
The agreement attached to the Wright Flyer has nothing to do with Whitehead, although it may have some effect any claims to be made in his behalf. For Decades the Smithsonian gave the honor of being first to fly to its own director, Langely. Langley's "plane" had no control surfaces, was launched off of a high platform, and "flew" from the top of the tower into the Potomac, killing its pilot.
It was acrimony over this that made Wilbur refuse to give the Wright Flyer to the museum until they recognized the Wrights flew before Langely.
Indeed, Langley's plane didn't so much as fly as *plummet.*
KFG
Some years ago an uncle of mine, ( who was taught to fly by Wilbur Wright), was called out of retirement by Grumman to head a team building a replica of the comapany's first plane, for the company museum.
It seems that the *art* of building such a plane had been lost and they needed an 'old timer' to come back and show them how it was done.
If nothing else building replicas of older craft, ( of all kinds), can give a greater understanding of history than you can derive from a book.
At it's best such activities may actually teach you things about history that had been, or were in danger of, being completely lost. Some of these things may, shock of shocks, still be important to know now, and perfectly applicable to entirely modern problems.
KFG
I'll second this. Anyone with *any* interest in old planes should go to the Rhinebeck Aerodrome, given any opportunity to do so.
I've been going there since I was a small child, and the late Cole Palen, the founder, gave me my first ride in an open cockpit biplane.
For the sake of accuracy I would point our that all planes older than WW1 are replicas, but are built to extremely tight historical standards.
Some of the WW1 planes are replicas as well, or replicas built around a few orginal parts, such as their Fokker DR1 triplane, of which there are no surviving, intact, examples.
And if you're into flying models every Labor Day weekend they stage one of the largest gatherings of WW1 era R/C planes in the world.
KFG
Ummmm, no. For decades the Smithsonian refused to acknowledge the Wrights as the first, giving the honor instead to Langley, former director of the Smithsonian itself.
You're right in that the Smithsonian propogated lies, but you've got the order backwards.
KFG
Yes, but you have inserted the strawman of TNT into the argument.
TNT is as irrelevant to the case at hand as is bubble gum.
Which is why * the charges have been dropped.*
KFG
Yeah, I just *knew* someone would point this out. I've personally worn out two vinyl copies of Switched on Bach, and three of Sgt. Pepper.
The digital remastering of Sgt. Pepper actually contains some purely analog sequences because it was impossible to reproduce, even in the studio, some of the effects, even with the surviving original studio tapes.
Even with this sort of music I think my point still stands.
Most music is intended to sound "real."
Most film is not. That's why they shoot on expensive film and not cheap video, and digital "film" will only equal film when the same effects can be done on it.
The same goes for digital photography, and I say this while I sit here and just itch to ditch my film cameras for digital, but I can't.
Yet.
KFG
for what he *did,* not what he said.
.$100 fine and 40 hrs. community service.
There is a distinct difference.
If everyone who ever said "I'll kill you" was guilty of murder we'd all be on death row.
Possesion of petroleum products would also see most of us behind bars.
Most of us have never defaced a website with malice aforethought.
He ought to get bitchslapped for that. Yes. And hard. Like. .
KFG
No, but they do sell Coleman fuel, kerosene, propane, matches, butane, and dozens of other explosives, not only at Target, but at most major supermarkets as well.
There is also, constitutionally, no license needed to speak or publish. Even state secrets. Research the "Pentagon Papers."
Also have a look at the Steve Jackson case, where computers were legally defined as printing and publishing devices and constitutionally illegal to seize, as was all private corespondence by e-mail without a warrant specifically for that piece of mail. The government has no legal right to seize an entire computer. Only copies of those *files* that are directly related to the alleged crime. Your monitor or CPU are NOT evidence, and only evidence, under warrant, may be legally seized. Thus, at *best*, the government can only seize media, such as your hard drive.
The fact that millinos of Americans now believe otherwise is a sad indictment of what we have become.
KFG
True, that is covered by the right to bear arms, also a constitutional right, covered in the second ammendment.
Please note that 'arms' is a generically unlimited term. The current focus on guns is a bit of legal slight of hand. Here in NY state I can walk down Main Street with a rifle and I am in within my legal rights, but the *possesion* of a wrist braced *slingshot* is a felony. This is unconstitutional, but who has the 10 years and $50K to fight it?
One also might wonder just how one goes about 'regeistering' a Molotov cocktail with the
FBI.
Comes to that, my local supermarket is crammed full of petroleum products and explosive devices.
What are they going to do next, ban exothermic chemical reactions?
KFG
Look you young little snot. You think you're older than dirt just because you remember records.
Records are for children.
God intended music to be cylindrical, and don't you forget it!
Kids these days. Don't know nothin'.
KFG
When I pop in a CD I want to hear the acoustic guitar like the player was sitting in my living room. Music is an auditory art, and for the most part the artist wants you to hear what he hears when he plays it. Music is the art of reality.
Movies are entirely different. Even the physical medium of images are born of a physical phenomenon entirely different than that which produces sounds and the intent of film production is also very different.
The fact of the matter is that in making a film a great deal of trouble is gone to to make sure the audience * does not * see what the director sees. He dosn't want you to see the microphones, the guy on the soundboard or the miles of cable strewn about. All things that seem perfectly natural when watching a live musical performance.
He also dosn't want you to see that that Victorian drawing room is constructed of paper and paste, that the giant tanker tossing about in a hurricane is a 6 ft model in a swimming pool, and he dosn't want you for a minute to realize there are NO spaceships buzzing about like Fokker Triplanes anywhere in this universe.
The phrase "Movie Magic" exists for a reason, because movies and magic are in fact part of the same art.
Movies are about *illusion!*
With all the advances in CG to create illusion on film, the fact of the matter is that, * at the moment*, film still does a better job of presenting this illusion *to the audience* than any digital medium does.
Watching the latest digital effects on DVD and a high resolution monitor tells me that the time will come when that will change.
But it isn't here yet.
KFG
And that's the problem.
My brother was projectionist at a local theater. This isn't just any theater, but a 1920's era Vaudville house that's been totally restored and brought up to spec with the latest movie technology.
He invited me to sit in the booth with him one day shortly after the restored theater had gone "online." It was a good, old fashioned movie show. Double feature with a short and a cartoon. The cartoon was the Bugs Bunny about the penguin from Hoboken.
My jaw dropped when it came on. For 20 years I'd only seen Warner Bros. cartoons on TV. I'd forgotten what they really looked like in their native enviroment.
Was it scratched, gritty, with specs of dirt? You bet your ass it was, but. . .
The colors. My God, this was NOTHING like what you can see on TV! The richness, the subtle shadings, the pure ART of the thing floored me.
Only seeing them on TV for 20 years made me forget what they were supposed to look like.
I'll live with the scratches and dirt specs until digital can make Bugs look the way Bugs is supposed to look.
When I go to the theater I don't want to see a big TV. I want to see FILM, light shining directly through a tinted medium.
At the moment, nothing else even comes close.
KFG
seem to center around something known as the dreaded "Slashdot Effect."
KFG
The point being that you don't need to make the same sales to make much more money.
90% of $100? That's a fraction of what she sells *per appearance.*
How about 90% of $100K, per album, as owner of your own record/publishing company, while retaining full ownership of your own songs, as opposed to signing away all rights to your own songs, selling 1 million albums, going on tour for six months and finding out after all of this that you owe the record company $20K?
What's more, since you signed away all of your rights if anyone covers your songs you recieve *nothing,* ever. In fact, if YOU rerecord your own songs you have to pay for the rights, just like anybody else.
Many bands find that they don't even own their own *name* anymore.
Me, I'll take the first scenario.
KFG
http://www.camillewest.com/
Z R/ qid=1013653610/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_83_2/104-2202003-60 18336http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005 A1TF/qid=1013653610/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_83_1/104-22020 03-6018336
T F/ qid=1013653610/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_83_1/104-2202003-60 18336
http://www.fourbitchinbabes.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004SQ
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005A1
Indeed, but there are only a handful of artists that manage this. Literally.
Most artists end up with a penny or two credited to their "account" and *lose* money on total sales, the pennies never coming close to adding up to the tens of thousands of dollars they are indebted to the record industry for.
KFG
You are aware, of course, that your reply has nothing at all to do with anything I wrote?
I spoke of nothing but purchasing music.
Let me ask you this. If my friend already had a record deal with a fairly mainstream label, *why did she selfproduce her own album?*
I've already given you the answer. Now all you have to do is go back and read it this time.
KFG
New artists who go on tour, in fact, generally *lose* money.
The record company "fronts" the captial for the tour, which the artist is *required* to go on by the terms of their record contract. The average new artist at the end of their first tour are generally surprised to find themselves an additional $10k in debt.
Most never manage to absolve themselves of this debt.
It is only the veteran tourers who make money, just as it only the 'artists' who can string a series of hits together that make money from album sales.
KFG
I have a friend who cut an album for Shanachie. Her next album she produced herself. Why?
She wanted to support the "artist."
When someone pays $20 for a CD at Tower if the artist gets a buck of it they're way ahead of the curve.
When Kenny Rogers was riding the country crossover wave he said that it wasn't until he had had five number one hits in a row that he made any money.
When I give my friend only $10 for her self produced CD I get a CD for half the price I would pay in a store, AND I know that $9 of that is profit in her pocket.
I believe in supporting the artist, and when the RIAA records a musical performance I'm willing to hand $10 to them personally for I'd be glad to do so.
KFG
on the above may well serve to illustrate my point.
KFG
Not exactly correct. If a product is guarunteed to solve all of your problems the odds are that it will solve a great many of your problems, but less than optimally.
There will be *some* problems that that it cannot solve at all.
It wall also solve *no* problems optimally.
The same largely applies to any purely mechnical device that claims to be "self adjusting and/or maintainence free." They always are, until they need adjusting or maintainence, which you then discover is impossible.
KFG
One can make an assesment of how little they know by the simple expedient of examining their work prior to Plan 9.
KFG
No, it's not a case of noone thinking of it before. It's simply the case that the engineering skill and knowledge to apply a known basic principle necessarily always lags behind the understanding of the basic physical properties.
Just think about it a minute. You've just discovered a new property of a substance. Does that mean you can just run out and start making new revolutionary things?
No, of course not, you still have to take the time to work out the engineering.
Certainly the most commonly known story of this phenomenon is the invention of the light bulb by Dr. Swan.
Oh, sorry. Most people don't know that story, they know the one about Edison, which actually further illustrates my point.
When a new basic principle is discovered there are generally thousands of people to whom the implications are patently evident, and the race is on to see who gets the credit for exploiting it first.
Swan actually demonstrated his light bulb before Edison did, and if Edison hadn't even bothered to try the light bulb would have been just as available in the exact same time frame. ( By the way, the same thing applies to the idea that Bill Gates is somehow personally responsible for the PC revolution).
But we DO pretty much all know the story of how Edison understood the basic principle involved, and how long it took, and the sacrifices he had to undergo, in order to learn how to *apply* that principle usefully.
N'cest pas?
KFG