The Batman movie franchise was good for the first 1 and 3/4 movies (up until Batman saw a duck on his radar screen in Batman 2), and seriously needed to die after that.
The first Hulk movie... my wife and I rented it. We fell asleep watching it, and gave it a try the next night. I was falling asleep again, so I started fast forwarding through a bunch of stuff. I asked my wife if she minded, and she was like "I didn't notice."
And I LIKE Eric Bana and I really like Jennifer Connelly.
The Ed Norton Hulk was all about inner conflict and didn't put me to sleep.
On the other hand, comics come out monthly, movies of any particular superhero... once every two or three years?
I don't know... I wouldn't want the movies to be never ending. Only James Bond has really managed to pull that off, and even then it's been... rebooted? Updated? Transformed, at least. You don't really expect continuity except in a really loose sense.
Not only that, but it was probably the first Superhero live action movie since the first Superman: The Movie to be pretty good...
After all the sucky superhero movies, Spiderman showed us you can actually do these things "right," leading to the newer Batman, Superman, and even a MUCH better Hulk movie, and Iron Man.
I'm not a huge comic fan, so I know those hardcore fans whine about things not being exactly right (and hey, keep whining, I've got no problem with that), so I pretty much enjoyed them.
But Spiderman was done right... even 2 and 3 were pretty good, so I think this is pretty sad.
Like you said... the guy broke the "push to talk button." The rubberized casing would prevent the keys from getting pushed on a fall to a flat surface, but I'm sure pretty much ANY of these phones will break simply by pushing buttons too hard.
And if that fails, smash the screen against the corner of a fish tank.
Higher resolution. Unlike a projection system, on an LCD screen of a given resolution, when it's in 3D mode, you're going to get half your pixels going to one eye, half to the other. With active shutter glasses, each eye gets the full resolution (just at half the framerate, but if the content is 60hz, and the monitor is 120hz, it shouldn't be a problem).
I work in a production facility.
on
Hot Or Not — 3D TV
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
We just got two 3D monitors from Hyundai, one smaller one that goes in the production area, and a huge one to show to clients. The networks, especially the ones that generate a lot of their own content, are scrambling for 3D content... not necessarily because they want to push it, but because everyone is scared to be left behind.
The Hyundai monitors use passive glasses, and the image is quite good. I can see 3D, especially with passive glasses (where you can buy replacements or extras for reasonable prices), really taking off.
You got modded funny, but I think it's more insightful. You're much more likely to find the isolated, lonely "genius" type in the engineering department than most other departments. Intellectually solid, emotional cripples. No, I'm not saying all or even most engineers are like that, but there seems to be a lot more socially awkward engineers than there are, for example, education majors.
People like that are ripe for the picking by extremist groups, whether it's terrorists or cults.
I'll be willing to bet they don't look for "mr. popularity" when recruiting.
When Best Buy first opened near me, the audio section had cables, speakers for walkmans/discmans, headphones, etc. You could then mosey over to the computer section, and the IDENTICAL ITEMS (brand and all) were marked higher.
No, that didn't last long, but it's the same principle: they didn't think people were paying attention, and I'm sure a lot of people bought stuff from the computer section without ever even checking the audio section.
Declaring something a "positive right" means you are prepared to provide a level of civilization to other citizens.
Again, no. "you are prepared to provide" != "you are forced to provide because it's a 'right.'"
Do you not understand the difference? I am not suggesting we don't freely give of ourselves, I'm suggesting it's WRONG to force someone to; you have NO right to my life, but if I choose to willingly give it, then that's another story.
Look, I don't give a rats ass about the arguments for or against the right to bear arms but to imply that those rights and the right to free speech are somehow similar rights - rights that one possesses simply by the virtue of being born - is laughable.
Again, another "foreigner" who doesn't understand the American concept of "negative" rights.
The bill of rights grants no rights; instead is assumes you already have many rights and simply enumerates ones that the government (in some cases restricted to the federal government) cannot take away.
At the time they wrote the constitution, they felt it necessary to explicitly point out that an armed populace was less likely to be coerced by government force, but they weren't "granting" the right, they were simply saying the right couldn't be taken away.
Only because you are ignoring (willfully or otherwise) that America was founded on a notion of negative rights, not "positive" ones.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech, but rights to housing, food, clothing and clean water.
Yes, but no one is required to provide them for you, they simply cannot deny you access. Nobody has to give you a venue for your free speech, nobody has to give you a house, nobody has to give you food; they simply cannot prevent you from buying them yourself.
This is not to say we are not charitable, we certainly are; but this is different than being able to declare these things "positive" rights which require the "right" to a portion of someone else's life. Do you believe you have the RIGHT to a portion of my life?
No, you absolutely do not have a right to a portion of someone else's life, which is what you are suggesting would require.
Now, before anyone gets all snippy about it, like a lot of things, I think access should be available, I just cannot agree that it's a "right." Like universal healthcare (hey, the topic's already been hijacked), I think universal healthcare is a great thing... just not a right at anyone else's expense. That said, my largest charitable donation goes to a children's hospital that will NOT refuse care to anyone... but then it's my decision. Taxes are not charity by any reasonable definition.
If you are serious about bringing positive rights to the US, you need to have a serious plan for changing the consensus view in the US for the role of the state in the day to day lives of the citizenry.
And if there's any reason left in the world, you will fail.
Declaring something a "positive right" means you are declaring a "right" to a portion of someone else's life.
I'm sure the prevailing slashdot assumption will be that publishers somehow fail to realize this, but I doubt that.
Does success mean "not alienating?" All of these successful DRM practices alienate customers, it's just that there's enough who are disinterested to make up for it. I give the example of audio cassettes which, despite opposition by recording companies, not only gave them a new outlet for their music, but made vinyl MORE worthwhile because the consumer had more options. Ditto video cassettes... they whined and whined until they found out they had a whole new revenue stream, at which point they were making more money than ever.
Are they shooting themselves in the foot? I don't know, maybe not, maybe it'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I really don't believe it's naive to distrust publishers.
Well, the problem is a normal user is going to want an office suite.
Why?
I mean... I think you may be right, that most people would want Office on their XP machine, but I really don't know why.
I remember way back when people used to say things like "I want a personal computer so I can do things like my finances and writing letters and so forth." Not only did very few people actually do that, I think even fewer now do it... I mean, most "normal" users just do their banking online, can use wordpad for typing those letters about why your kid was out of school or to some company that forgot to include the screws in the assembly-required bookcase you bought.
Giving people this software for free... as a "normal" user, all it means is people keep sending me shit in MS Office.doc format for absolutely no reason at all; they should rather include the MS document viewer instead of the whole office suite.
Now, I can see how college students might want a better word processor, but that's not "normal," that's specific for people who tend to have to write a lot... average person at home doesn't need anything beyond wordpad.
I think you can use SVG icons, in which case inkscape would be the first one that comes to mind (my mind, anyway). Now, the icons I created were for the taskbar... I really don't know if they work on the desktop, but really, I can't imagine it's different.
Really? Since you're being a pedantic jerk (somebody piss in your cornflakes this morning?), the entire rest of the world does not see it that way; not EVERYONE signed the DMCA.
I was clearly referring to copying content you have no right to at all; I was clearly referring to media you'd never purchased in any way, shape, or form. I even threw you a bone and said I agreed with you... WTF is your damage?
Yes, I agree with you - there is the case of mymp3.com, where you would put your CD into your computer, it would read the ID and unlock those mp3s online for you. The judge ruled that it was copyright infringement because it was an mp3 made from someone else's copy of the CD, not yours.
I disagree. I frankly don't consider that to really be copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
But James Bond has evolved over the years... and I would say the Daniel Craig Casino Royal was a reboot, of sorts... maybe you'd prefer "reimaging."
The Batman movie franchise was good for the first 1 and 3/4 movies (up until Batman saw a duck on his radar screen in Batman 2), and seriously needed to die after that.
The first Hulk movie... my wife and I rented it. We fell asleep watching it, and gave it a try the next night. I was falling asleep again, so I started fast forwarding through a bunch of stuff. I asked my wife if she minded, and she was like "I didn't notice."
And I LIKE Eric Bana and I really like Jennifer Connelly.
The Ed Norton Hulk was all about inner conflict and didn't put me to sleep.
On the other hand, comics come out monthly, movies of any particular superhero... once every two or three years?
I don't know... I wouldn't want the movies to be never ending. Only James Bond has really managed to pull that off, and even then it's been... rebooted? Updated? Transformed, at least. You don't really expect continuity except in a really loose sense.
Not only that, but it was probably the first Superhero live action movie since the first Superman: The Movie to be pretty good...
After all the sucky superhero movies, Spiderman showed us you can actually do these things "right," leading to the newer Batman, Superman, and even a MUCH better Hulk movie, and Iron Man.
I'm not a huge comic fan, so I know those hardcore fans whine about things not being exactly right (and hey, keep whining, I've got no problem with that), so I pretty much enjoyed them.
But Spiderman was done right... even 2 and 3 were pretty good, so I think this is pretty sad.
Like you said... the guy broke the "push to talk button." The rubberized casing would prevent the keys from getting pushed on a fall to a flat surface, but I'm sure pretty much ANY of these phones will break simply by pushing buttons too hard.
And if that fails, smash the screen against the corner of a fish tank.
Actually, I may be lying, it depends how the passive is implemented on the LCD monitor. Well... not lying, just wrong.
Higher resolution. Unlike a projection system, on an LCD screen of a given resolution, when it's in 3D mode, you're going to get half your pixels going to one eye, half to the other. With active shutter glasses, each eye gets the full resolution (just at half the framerate, but if the content is 60hz, and the monitor is 120hz, it shouldn't be a problem).
We just got two 3D monitors from Hyundai, one smaller one that goes in the production area, and a huge one to show to clients. The networks, especially the ones that generate a lot of their own content, are scrambling for 3D content... not necessarily because they want to push it, but because everyone is scared to be left behind.
The Hyundai monitors use passive glasses, and the image is quite good. I can see 3D, especially with passive glasses (where you can buy replacements or extras for reasonable prices), really taking off.
Air naturally contains CO2, so according to the U.S., it's not just a greenhouse gas, it's a pollutant.
I didn't claim innocence, but the misery these people live in day in and out is due to their own governments.
Actually, it's more like the terrible treatment they get from their own governments who blame Americans and Israelis.
You got modded funny, but I think it's more insightful. You're much more likely to find the isolated, lonely "genius" type in the engineering department than most other departments. Intellectually solid, emotional cripples. No, I'm not saying all or even most engineers are like that, but there seems to be a lot more socially awkward engineers than there are, for example, education majors.
People like that are ripe for the picking by extremist groups, whether it's terrorists or cults.
I'll be willing to bet they don't look for "mr. popularity" when recruiting.
When Best Buy first opened near me, the audio section had cables, speakers for walkmans/discmans, headphones, etc. You could then mosey over to the computer section, and the IDENTICAL ITEMS (brand and all) were marked higher.
No, that didn't last long, but it's the same principle: they didn't think people were paying attention, and I'm sure a lot of people bought stuff from the computer section without ever even checking the audio section.
Again, no. "you are prepared to provide" != "you are forced to provide because it's a 'right.'"
Do you not understand the difference? I am not suggesting we don't freely give of ourselves, I'm suggesting it's WRONG to force someone to; you have NO right to my life, but if I choose to willingly give it, then that's another story.
Again, another "foreigner" who doesn't understand the American concept of "negative" rights.
The bill of rights grants no rights; instead is assumes you already have many rights and simply enumerates ones that the government (in some cases restricted to the federal government) cannot take away.
At the time they wrote the constitution, they felt it necessary to explicitly point out that an armed populace was less likely to be coerced by government force, but they weren't "granting" the right, they were simply saying the right couldn't be taken away.
Only because you are ignoring (willfully or otherwise) that America was founded on a notion of negative rights, not "positive" ones.
Yes, but no one is required to provide them for you, they simply cannot deny you access. Nobody has to give you a venue for your free speech, nobody has to give you a house, nobody has to give you food; they simply cannot prevent you from buying them yourself.
This is not to say we are not charitable, we certainly are; but this is different than being able to declare these things "positive" rights which require the "right" to a portion of someone else's life. Do you believe you have the RIGHT to a portion of my life?
No, you absolutely do not have a right to a portion of someone else's life, which is what you are suggesting would require.
Now, before anyone gets all snippy about it, like a lot of things, I think access should be available, I just cannot agree that it's a "right." Like universal healthcare (hey, the topic's already been hijacked), I think universal healthcare is a great thing... just not a right at anyone else's expense. That said, my largest charitable donation goes to a children's hospital that will NOT refuse care to anyone... but then it's my decision. Taxes are not charity by any reasonable definition.
And if there's any reason left in the world, you will fail.
Declaring something a "positive right" means you are declaring a "right" to a portion of someone else's life.
No. Just no.
And yet people want us "city folk" to subsidize their broadband/electricity/whatever.
You need to take the bad with the good. Yes, I know you have broadband choices, but you're obviously not living in as "sticky" a place as others.
It's like watching Christians defend their belief in Jesus.
Go ahead, troll me. I expect nothing less from religious fanatics.
I'm sure the prevailing slashdot assumption will be that publishers somehow fail to realize this, but I doubt that.
Does success mean "not alienating?" All of these successful DRM practices alienate customers, it's just that there's enough who are disinterested to make up for it. I give the example of audio cassettes which, despite opposition by recording companies, not only gave them a new outlet for their music, but made vinyl MORE worthwhile because the consumer had more options. Ditto video cassettes... they whined and whined until they found out they had a whole new revenue stream, at which point they were making more money than ever.
Are they shooting themselves in the foot? I don't know, maybe not, maybe it'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I really don't believe it's naive to distrust publishers.
Well, the problem is a normal user is going to want an office suite.
Why?
I mean... I think you may be right, that most people would want Office on their XP machine, but I really don't know why.
I remember way back when people used to say things like "I want a personal computer so I can do things like my finances and writing letters and so forth." Not only did very few people actually do that, I think even fewer now do it... I mean, most "normal" users just do their banking online, can use wordpad for typing those letters about why your kid was out of school or to some company that forgot to include the screws in the assembly-required bookcase you bought.
Giving people this software for free... as a "normal" user, all it means is people keep sending me shit in MS Office .doc format for absolutely no reason at all; they should rather include the MS document viewer instead of the whole office suite.
Now, I can see how college students might want a better word processor, but that's not "normal," that's specific for people who tend to have to write a lot... average person at home doesn't need anything beyond wordpad.
I think you can use SVG icons, in which case inkscape would be the first one that comes to mind (my mind, anyway). Now, the icons I created were for the taskbar... I really don't know if they work on the desktop, but really, I can't imagine it's different.
Really? Since you're being a pedantic jerk (somebody piss in your cornflakes this morning?), the entire rest of the world does not see it that way; not EVERYONE signed the DMCA.
I was clearly referring to copying content you have no right to at all; I was clearly referring to media you'd never purchased in any way, shape, or form. I even threw you a bone and said I agreed with you... WTF is your damage?
Ahh... fine... insults were uncalled for, though.
Yes, I agree with you - there is the case of mymp3.com, where you would put your CD into your computer, it would read the ID and unlock those mp3s online for you. The judge ruled that it was copyright infringement because it was an mp3 made from someone else's copy of the CD, not yours.
I disagree. I frankly don't consider that to really be copyright infringement.