I think the fundamental difference between that and this is that she is put in a labour camp for it - what happened to that UK Citizen? One night spent in a cell, if that?
Really. Well I guess its not like in the U.S. where a sports athlete will be fined at least 20 grand for posting nothing out of the ordinary. AKA Terrel Owens, Randy Moss
The fact of the matter is - if you have money in a bank account, and some spare change, you are better off than the majority of China, and most of the rest of the world.
Are you thinking in a desktop or a server environment? Because I have only ever seen ONE server ever use every single one of its memory slots full of the Max amount of memory for a stick at the time.
Often times, its trivial to upgrade RAM to get a spare slot.
It's Not as trivial to have to unplug absolutely everything because you switched out the power supply.
I have a feeling though that it is slightly more complex than that - it's not "just' that the charges are swapped - otherwise there'd be no reason that "regular" matter seems to have prevailed over antimatter. The positive particles (Protons) also have far more mass than negative particles (Electrons) - so I honestly don't expect anti-copper to behave exactly like copper.
For some of us - 10 cents a text would destroy bank accounts. I can't remember the last time I was under 25 texts a day (which would be 75 dollars a month, just in texts). I've gone up into the 100+ texts a day when trying to plan things with friends and mass texts.
That last long take is really breath-taking, I didn't really realize how long the take was or how many of those kinds of shots had been throughout the film until I watched it a second time. And the third time when I was specifically watching for the cuts or dissolves it seemed a little less impressive than that second watch - but still a good flick.
Like you noticed - the blood gets on the camera lense - and there is a point at which you might be watching and go "Hey, where'd the blood go?" thats because they did such a good job at making it look like 1 long take though they did have a cut somewhere in the middle there. I know that happened to me, anyways (which is what spurred that third watchthrough for cuts).
However - I think the big thing now is that I'm in the habit of looking for them. I notice long cuts wherever they are now, the later bit of the opening to Serenity being one of them - I noticed it was a long cut before watching the directors commentary - and its just kind of a subconscious thing now.
I guess just being in that position of first person feeling for a bit longer than the usual take lets my mind focus on the directing a little bit more than the movie - which I don't think is any flaw in the movie - it's a flaw in my movie watching ability, I've started a habit thats hard to break.
I *despise* the tiny little takes, the snappy transitions, the sound bites.
Let me say that while I agree with you, there's something to be said for economy in editing. One of the things I hate about many amateur Youtube videos is they have no sense of rhythm or purpose. They dwell on a shot for 10-15 seconds when the focal point only takes five.
Ha! Meanwhile one of the things that annoys me about most popular (could be inferred as professional) Youtube videos is that they Dwell on a shot for 5 seconds, then start the next for 5 seconds, then the next, the next, the next, its like a non-stop one liner marathon to try and make you laugh as much as possible. =3 with Ray William Johnson is a prime example of this. While I may find the content funny the delivery method is really quite annoying - but its everywhere!
I think I personally prefer the videos with no Rhythm than the ones whose rhythm is so high strung I need some Riddlin just to keep up.
I scrolled through his list saying to myself "He better have Children of Men on there" which of course was the very bottom. Now I mean you can like that movie for a lot of reasons but one of the things that I Really like about it is the fact that they do the Long Takes and execute them well.
It creates a greater sense of immersion - when the camera cuts from scene to scene too often - I don't feel like I'm in one place and subconsciously get jarred and reminded that I'm watching people acting out a scene. With a long shot that follows the actors around or pans to each character instead of cutting to each character - I feel like I'm actually standing there, as a passive observer, watching these things unfold.
Now - when I see a long take in a movie, I feel like I can enjoy the movie more itself in that I feel more immersed in the story, but reflecting upon it I also admire the difficulty directors and Actors have with such scenes. Especially when you've got a bunch of explosive rigs and dollys and whatnots all lined up - and getting extras to do what they're told... These kinds of shots aren't the kind that you can just say "Cut! Try it again from the top!" - you have to get it just about right the first time to film.
As a side note, the opening scene to Children of Men, after watching some of the bonus content on the DvD it looks like Clive Owen's character was meant to grab his coffee and then turn and run for cover, but in the actual film he is so jarred that he spills it - I have always wondered if that was a last second change or decision - or if that was just a nice side effect of only getting 1 take on film.
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't get the "Twitter is for idiot jokes". Part of my brain must be missing.
I think the fundamental difference between that and this is that she is put in a labour camp for it - what happened to that UK Citizen? One night spent in a cell, if that?
Its one thing to post a joke bomb threat and have the cops show up. Possibly give you some misdemeanor.
Its another thing to post a joke and have the cops pick you up and put you in a labour camp.
Really. Well I guess its not like in the U.S. where a sports athlete will be fined at least 20 grand for posting nothing out of the ordinary. AKA Terrel Owens, Randy Moss
The fact of the matter is - if you have money in a bank account, and some spare change, you are better off than the majority of China, and most of the rest of the world.
I'm pretty sure Bill Gates doesn't need Re-Education, nor does Stephen Hawking, and they both have twitter feeds.
Are you thinking in a desktop or a server environment? Because I have only ever seen ONE server ever use every single one of its memory slots full of the Max amount of memory for a stick at the time.
Often times, its trivial to upgrade RAM to get a spare slot.
It's Not as trivial to have to unplug absolutely everything because you switched out the power supply.
Sure, in a 1U rack it *might* save a trivial amount of space. I just dont see a market for it.
If there's anything I've learned from calculus - it's that a whole lot of trivial values can add up to something significant.
But then... What is this?
It might not even BE that 1/3 of the kids cheated.
Heck - if I did amazing in the course, but bombed that test, I'd say I cheated if it meant exclusion of that test for my grade.
Are you trying to say that Malpractice Insurance Ad isn't an accurate representation of what hundreds of thousands of Neurons look like?
Yes.
Seven of each.
I hope that clarifies things.
I have a feeling though that it is slightly more complex than that - it's not "just' that the charges are swapped - otherwise there'd be no reason that "regular" matter seems to have prevailed over antimatter. The positive particles (Protons) also have far more mass than negative particles (Electrons) - so I honestly don't expect anti-copper to behave exactly like copper.
Oh hey everybody, it's Tom Hanks!
For some of us - 10 cents a text would destroy bank accounts. I can't remember the last time I was under 25 texts a day (which would be 75 dollars a month, just in texts). I've gone up into the 100+ texts a day when trying to plan things with friends and mass texts.
I Really doubt it they'll charge you for it. If they can have Toll Free phone numbers I think they can manage toll free Text messages.
And if you block texts, I suppose that'd be about the same as having your TV turned off - or not hooked up to any input.
Until they get into the top room - at which point there is a clear cut when he gets shot by the Fish Leader.
Only senders pay.
Which still doesn't address the issue of a DOS attack. I don't think you fully understand the mechanics involved.
Tell me, exactly what does the US government have to do to its citizens for it to be newsworthy?
Be Honest.
Like someone else mentioned, are you going to pay for lost packets?
Suppose you only use 1KB and they charge you for 1MB, is that fair?
And what about incomming traffic. Do you have to pay for a DOS attack?
That last long take is really breath-taking, I didn't really realize how long the take was or how many of those kinds of shots had been throughout the film until I watched it a second time. And the third time when I was specifically watching for the cuts or dissolves it seemed a little less impressive than that second watch - but still a good flick.
Like you noticed - the blood gets on the camera lense - and there is a point at which you might be watching and go "Hey, where'd the blood go?" thats because they did such a good job at making it look like 1 long take though they did have a cut somewhere in the middle there. I know that happened to me, anyways (which is what spurred that third watchthrough for cuts).
However - I think the big thing now is that I'm in the habit of looking for them. I notice long cuts wherever they are now, the later bit of the opening to Serenity being one of them - I noticed it was a long cut before watching the directors commentary - and its just kind of a subconscious thing now.
I guess just being in that position of first person feeling for a bit longer than the usual take lets my mind focus on the directing a little bit more than the movie - which I don't think is any flaw in the movie - it's a flaw in my movie watching ability, I've started a habit thats hard to break.
But I think its the only one in that movie - as far as I can recall.
He's talking about movies that actually use it as a feature as much as other movies use CGI.
I *despise* the tiny little takes, the snappy transitions, the sound bites.
Let me say that while I agree with you, there's something to be said for economy in editing. One of the things I hate about many amateur Youtube videos is they have no sense of rhythm or purpose. They dwell on a shot for 10-15 seconds when the focal point only takes five.
Ha!
Meanwhile one of the things that annoys me about most popular (could be inferred as professional) Youtube videos is that they Dwell on a shot for 5 seconds, then start the next for 5 seconds, then the next, the next, the next, its like a non-stop one liner marathon to try and make you laugh as much as possible. =3 with Ray William Johnson is a prime example of this. While I may find the content funny the delivery method is really quite annoying - but its everywhere!
I think I personally prefer the videos with no Rhythm than the ones whose rhythm is so high strung I need some Riddlin just to keep up.
Which is meant to immerse you.
You should think Long takes make you feel like being "First person"
not necessarily "first person shooter"
I thought it was a long take.
Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.
I scrolled through his list saying to myself "He better have Children of Men on there" which of course was the very bottom. Now I mean you can like that movie for a lot of reasons but one of the things that I Really like about it is the fact that they do the Long Takes and execute them well.
It creates a greater sense of immersion - when the camera cuts from scene to scene too often - I don't feel like I'm in one place and subconsciously get jarred and reminded that I'm watching people acting out a scene. With a long shot that follows the actors around or pans to each character instead of cutting to each character - I feel like I'm actually standing there, as a passive observer, watching these things unfold.
Now - when I see a long take in a movie, I feel like I can enjoy the movie more itself in that I feel more immersed in the story, but reflecting upon it I also admire the difficulty directors and Actors have with such scenes. Especially when you've got a bunch of explosive rigs and dollys and whatnots all lined up - and getting extras to do what they're told... These kinds of shots aren't the kind that you can just say "Cut! Try it again from the top!" - you have to get it just about right the first time to film.
As a side note, the opening scene to Children of Men, after watching some of the bonus content on the DvD it looks like Clive Owen's character was meant to grab his coffee and then turn and run for cover, but in the actual film he is so jarred that he spills it - I have always wondered if that was a last second change or decision - or if that was just a nice side effect of only getting 1 take on film.