Here are the first three defintions of film I encountered in an online dictionary:
1. movie
2. CINEMA motion pictures collectively: movies collectively, considered as a medium for recording events, a form of entertainment, or an art form
3. PHOTOGRAPHY coated strip for taking pictures: a thin translucent strip or sheet of cellulose coated with an emulsion sensitive to light, used in a camera to take still or moving pictures
I think the poing here is that something can be shot on celluloid (the best graphic technology there is) and produced in a Hollywood studio (the best studios there are), but if it's released on TV or atomfilms.com, the Oscars won't honor it.
What's being protected here is the distributor's revenue, distributors are as much a part of Hollywood as Barnes and Nobles/Borders is a part of Publishing--they dictate it.
You seem to be invoking the "holy internet principles" again; a common malady among slashfoters. Any imagined principles derived from the tech community which created the internet are completely arbitrary; a web page does not need to conform to anyone's principles but that of its own creator. Americans' ancestors agreed to the constitution; therefore it holds weight with me. But I never signed off on any "internet principles"; so sound bytes by Tim Berners-Lee, much as I respect the guy, carry *no weight* for me. I will design web pages according to my own conscience, aesthetic and accesiblity standards.
No, no, I have to disagree with your assessment of the relative uses and merits of Flash. Yes, it's *usually* used obnoxiously, but not necesarily so.
Look at http://www.moma.org, official site for the Museum of Modern Art. Here flash is used simply and elegantly (no ohh ahh effect) for site navigation; it's not trying to be site's the content--the bitmaps of great art and the articles are the content--but it enhances the feel of the site.
It allows you to pack a lot of links into a page without giving it a cluttered look and over-solicitous/click-me-please feel, like say...almost every major site out there--crammed to the brink with links.
I do have to conceed that a site that doesn't offer a Flash alternative, as many professionally designed sites do, is totally stupid.
I agree wholeheartedly; there is a special kinship between linux and mac users--there's also a special synergy that happens when you put YDL CS 1.2 on a G4 500 with a gig of RAM; you enter a realm of speed+stability where WINTEL users/fans dare not (cannot) tread.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are the first three defintions of film I encountered in an online dictionary:
1. movie
2. CINEMA motion pictures collectively: movies collectively, considered as a medium for recording events, a form of entertainment, or an art form
3. PHOTOGRAPHY coated strip for taking pictures: a thin translucent strip or sheet of cellulose coated with an emulsion sensitive to light, used in a camera to take still or moving pictures
I think the poing here is that something can be shot on celluloid (the best graphic technology there is) and produced in a Hollywood studio (the best studios there are), but if it's released on TV or atomfilms.com, the Oscars won't honor it.
What's being protected here is the distributor's revenue, distributors are as much a part of Hollywood as Barnes and Nobles/Borders is a part of Publishing--they dictate it.
You seem to be invoking the "holy internet principles" again; a common malady among slashfoters. Any imagined principles derived from the tech community which created the internet are completely arbitrary; a web page does not need to conform to anyone's principles but that of its own creator. Americans' ancestors agreed to the constitution; therefore it holds weight with me. But I never signed off on any "internet principles"; so sound bytes by Tim Berners-Lee, much as I respect the guy, carry *no weight* for me. I will design web pages according to my own conscience, aesthetic and accesiblity standards.
No, no, I have to disagree with your assessment of the relative uses and merits of Flash. Yes, it's *usually* used obnoxiously, but not necesarily so.
Look at http://www.moma.org, official site for the Museum of Modern Art. Here flash is used simply and elegantly (no ohh ahh effect) for site navigation; it's not trying to be site's the content--the bitmaps of great art and the articles are the content--but it enhances the feel of the site.
It allows you to pack a lot of links into a page without giving it a cluttered look and over-solicitous/click-me-please feel, like say...almost every major site out there--crammed to the brink with links.
I do have to conceed that a site that doesn't offer a Flash alternative, as many professionally designed sites do, is totally stupid.
I agree wholeheartedly; there is a special kinship between linux and mac users--there's also a special synergy that happens when you put YDL CS 1.2 on a G4 500 with a gig of RAM; you enter a realm of speed+stability where WINTEL users/fans dare not (cannot) tread.