I should have made clear that I haven't heard anything to indicate that they knew of possible damage until well after the shuttle was in orbit.
Which does kind of make a person think of the Titanic and its lifeboat complement.
What it makes me think of is a passenger airplane. If something terrible enough happens you are all going to die. Your hope is that the plane is so well engineered that nothing terrible will happen. The shuttle is the same way. Once you take off you are committed.
Even if they launch again it will never be used. While we're on the subject of stuff never getting used here is a story: While I was at Thiokol I saw some cool composite boosters sitting out one day. I asked about them and was told that they next launch after the Challenger was supposed to be a military launch out of Edwards and they were using the composite boosters to have a greater payload capacity. Everybody had been real excited about the prospect of these lighter boosters. Of course after Challenger not only did all the old boosters get tossed (ok, probably recycled) but the nifty carbon fiber ones never got to go up either. Both types of course had the same o-ring design that was blamed for the Challenger disaster. Boosters cost $20 million a pop to manufacture and another $20 million to fill if I remember correctly.
The linked article mentions that they could concievably get another shuttle up in as quick as a week, if they skipped all of the redundant pre-flight safety checks.
I'm absolutely certain that if they had reason to believe this was necessary, they would have done so.
Having worked on the shuttle program I can tell you that everyone involved would have done everything possible to save the crew. I agree that if they thought there was a good chance of a problem and a second launch was possible they would have gone up with a second shuttle and brought them back down.
Technically the main tank is never reused. It burns up after it is detached. So while it was the old style it was a "new" tank. The solid rocket boosters are recovered and reused.
While I agree with your point that NASA wasn't knowingly sending the shuttle crew to its doom, there are some errors in your post.
Ron Dittemore made it clear in the Saturday press conference that there is no way to do an EVA in order to inspect the wing or tiles. The EVAs that are done are done in the cargo bay area. The arm that is used to go further out wasn't aboard this flight.
Also, there is no way they could have gone to the space station. The Columbia is the heaviest of the shuttles and they used the old style heavy main tank for liftoff. They can't get to the station's orbit with that configuration.
The only hope to rescue them that I could see would be to launch another shuttle to recue them. I don't know how quickly a shuttle can be launched in an emergency, but I would guess that it wouldn't be very quick. Also I doubt that such a situation has been trained for, which would make it all the more unlikely that it would be attempted.
Assuming that they knew about the damage the best way to save the ship and crew that I know of would be to abort the launch and land in Morocco. This is a contigency plan that the crew has trained for. Of course this would require them to know about the damage when it happened and not go on to orbit.
we don't really have the technology to "santize" something like that without making it glaringly obvious.
How long will that last? In another post I mentioned that in Spiderman all the billbaords in one scene were changed from what really appears there to compnaies that paid for placement. There was even a lawsuit over it.
As fot the Cheerios, that was a paid placement. Superman II is worse. The producers were paid $43k to place Marlboro's logo prominently in the movie and to not portray the brand in a negative light. To me this is worse than a banner ad, but maybe not as bad as a pop-up/under.
Please change the background on your website. I am assuming that it belongs to you due to the name. It is very difficult to read the text with that background pattern.
While we're on the subject, there is some actual overlap here between website ads and movies. Paid product placements are becoming more and more common. Spiderman went so far as to digitally replace the actual billboards in Times Square with brands associated with the company releasing the movie. Of course, maybe Spiderman is the AOL of movies...
The proudest moments of my professional life were spent working on the shuttle program. I felt that I was working on something important, something that would have a lasting impact. There are tears in my eyes as I write this. I am at a loss for words... There is a prayer in my heart for the families of these astronauts.
but I find it interesting that you are defending them so (?) even though you disclosed you had never used their "services".
Why is that interesting? I think that people have a right to do this sort of thing. I don't choose to exercise that right. I don't even think that it is always a good idea. I just don't think that it is illegal or evil.
Some people like the way that CleanFlicks sanitizes movies. They know what to expect from them. They are making a choice to let those "wankers" edit them. Why does that bother you?
In The Rookie the Lord's name in is taken in vain twice. I have admitted elsewhere on this discussion that I might be a wacko for thinking this, but to me that is more offensive than any 4-letter word you can name.
Other than that there is nothing offensive unless you count drinking beer as offensive. Please note that I didn't think the movie was offensive. In order to give you a counter-example, I saw "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" over the weekend and thought that was a bit distasteful. Certainly not for children.
My point is that services like the ones being discussed here allow prudish parents to watch G, PG and PG-13 movies with their children without any worries. The point is not to watch Showgirls with them or other movies that count on language/sex/violence to get their point across. These service give parents a finer level of control over what they bring into their own house. I think that choice is good in this case. I myself choose not to use such a service (for now) but I don't think that choice should be taken away.
Here's a tip: watch G-rated movies. That's what the rating system is for.
If there is one thing that Roger Ebert is right about it is that the ratings system is terribly broken.
As for your point about G-rated movies, I have recently seen a G-rated movie that had unnecessary offensive language. I have no idea why it was in there, but if I had young children I wouldn't want them to hear it. ClearPlay would solve this problem. That is what it is for. It isn't so you can watch "Showgirls" with your 5 year old.
You can make up your own mind about all that, but I will say this: whenever some [company|group|cult|person] tells me they're going to save my children from myself, I have a problem with it.
When have you been told this by CleanFlicks? Again you are flinging accusations without backup.
No, I don't have to buy from them, but that's not the point. My point was that the consumer-driven system is far better because they can determine what to clean and what to leave.
Actually that is a lot of the point. Nobody is forcing you to participate in CleanFlicks but you want to force people to not be able to use it. Both systems are consumer driven. People wouldn't participate in CleanFlicks if they weren't getting what they want as a consumer out of it. The difference is how fine grained the control is. The people who use this service think it is a better alternative than what Hollywood provides which is a simple take it or leave it approach. Unless of course you happen to watch movies on an airplane or network TV.
Wacko.
Thank you. That must be why I spend this much time responding to you.:)
See above. I didn't say the interactive system was good, I said it was better than the alternative, which is CleanFlicks.
I may have read your original hate-filled post incorrectly. And yes, you do hate those CleanFlicks bastards, admit it. Lets look at the post: This is far better than those wankers over at CleanFlicks [cleanflicks.com] who not only have an agenda, but also infringe on the copyright of directors and producers (in fact they've been sued already for that very same reason).
A device that does that puts the power to choose what to see and what not to see in the hands of the consumer, where it belongs.
Now in the first paragraph you do say that this is "far better". The second paragraph goes even further and says that the on-the-fly system puts power "where it belongs", which you say, is in the hands of "the consumer". Now this leads me to think that of the three alternatives you would rank them this way: 1. Power in the hands of the consumer. 2. Power in the hands of Hollywood. 3. Power in the hands of the consumer who chooses to go to CleanFlicks. I think that you would change #3 to "Power in the hands of CleanFlicks," right? Anyhow, have I read your orignal post incorrectly? You seem to be implying in it that power in the hands of the consumer is good, but now you claim that it is merely better. Does that mean it is still bad in your opinion? Seriously, I am trying to understand you here.
Actually the difference is that "CleanFlicks" have a business model which cannot operate without their infringing copyright. They take someone elses work, alter it then distribute the result to third parties.
Technically they are not distributing it to third parties. CleanFlicks is a cooperative and you have to join the club to take home a movie. So you are not "renting" a movie, you are taking home a movie that you own in common with a bunch of other people.
I thought it was a pretty good analogy... Oh well.
It is obviously that there is enough of a market for edited movies to make money off them. Maybe not in the Northeast but there certainly is in the Mountain West and the South. Hollywood hasn't taken the bull by the horns here though so somebody else did. Now Hollywood is crying without offering an alternative. I say, "Too bad Hollywood. You had your chance. If you want to compete with these companies in the marketplace then fine, but don't give me this 'artistic integrity' crap. Not when I gew up knowing that Clark Kent had a giant box of Cheerios on his breakfast table."
ClearPlay is not merely providing you with a sheet of paper that tells you when to fast-forward.
If I distribute a list of when to press fast forward to avoid seeing Jar Jar that would bother you? What it I made a remote that could read that list and press the button for me? I am sure that you see where this is going.
What can I not do with my DVD beyond distributing copies of it? Are you also opposed to the recent trend of downloadable fan commentaries? Those are certainly a de facto derivate work.
Um, do a Google on "CleanFlicks christian" and you'll figure it out, I'm sure.
What is your point? Do you think that their agenda is to edit movies in such a way as to convince you to join their church? Surely you give them too much credit. Why does everything have to have an "agenda" attached to it? "Oh no CleanFlicks is from Utah, there must be an agenda!" You are silly. In the interest of full disclosure, I grew up in Utah, however I have never made use of any CleanFlicks type service. Their "agenda" hasn't been far-reaching enough to force me to watch them. It probably hasn't bothered you too much either, has it?
CleanFlicks is making money off of consumer stupidity and lack of parenting skills...
How about I just don't fscking buy the sneakers in the first place?
You are making an excellent stray man argument here. Let's take a less extreme example. Say "The Rookie", a G rated movie. Now I know this sort of thing probably doesn't offend you (that is why you are free to watch the unedited version) but the phrase, "Oh my God!" occurs more than once in the movie. What I am about to say will cause you to think that I am a nut. So be it. To me that language is more offensive than the adjective that you used to describe your hypothetical sneakers. If I had children I would prefer that they not hear that. Call me a wacko.
Furthermore, take broadcast TV. When they edit movies they pay huge amounts of money to the copyright owners (a cost that is of course added to the broadcast rights). Where is CleanFlicks incurring this expense? Shouldn't they? I think they should.
I don't think that the word "incurring" means what you think it means. Of course CleanFlicks is incurring an expense. They are buying the movies and spending the time and materials to edit them. Of course from the context it seems that you think "incurring" means give money to the copyright owners. Well CleanFlicks does that too when they buy the movie, right?
Alternately you could be saying that TV networks pay for the right to edit a movie over and above what they pay to simply broadcast it. If this is what you are saying, let me know. I have never heard of this practice but that certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
You still haven't addressed my main point, which is that while an on-the-fly system (which I agree is superior) and CleanFlick are different in some ways, they are not so different that one is commendable while the other is contemptible. Also, keep in mind that someone is going to have to make style-sheets, filters, or masks for each movie. These people will be execising less control over what you see than the people at CleanFlicks do, but it is still control. You can bet that because of the flexiblity that such systems offer CleanFlicks will move over to that model.
Ultimately consumers know what they are getting when the make use of a service like CleanFlicks or a filtering DVD player. If anyone is being "harmed" it is the consumers themselves in the privacy of their homes. Maybe we should protect them by outlawing such services and giving them fewer choices? Oh wait, now who has an agenda?
What agenda do the "wankers" at CleanFlicks have? An accusation like that should be backed up. Also, when has it been proven that they infringe on copyright? Do directors even retain copyright? What case have they lost?
I agree that there is a distinction to be made between devices such as MovieMask which filter on the fly and CleanFlick, but in the end it is still the consumer that is choosing to view an edited movie. The difference is how fine grained the control is, not the concept itself.
Finally, you can bet that CleanFlicks will make use of the technology ASAP. There is no reason for them not to since there is no "agenda".
What are the odds that originally he found the POET title to be clever and sophisticated, only to discovered after publication that he was simply being self indulgent? Interesting that a book on interfaces and design would have such a poorly designed title.:)
I could be wrong. I certainly have been wrong before. That said, I don't think that there is that much interest in a "realistic" space combat game. In "realistic" space combat the fighting won't be very human controlled anyhow. It will be AIs duking it out with very little human intervention. An example from current tech: Do you think that you could shoot down a missle yourself? Human participation is limited to a yes/no on whether to try to shoot it down. That doesn't strike me as thrilling.
Star Wars and Star Trek have set a certain expectation for what space combat will be like and that is what people want to see in a video game. I certainly encourage you to try to create something totatlly different, I just don't think it would have wide appeal.
One year driving back from winter break a large group of us stopped off at Circus Circus and actually had some fun there doing the carnival games. We ended up with a lot of small stuffed animals including several penguins. We discovered that the penguins fit very nicely in the barrel of our potato gun. They soon became standard ammo to be launched off our balconey at a variety of targets. You got the same boom of launching fruit but with less danger and less mess. Of course they didn't fly as far as that one legendary apple, but that helped them be a recoverable form of ammo, good for using again and again.
Now if only RMS had seen us launching little penguins... he would have made us call it a GNU/Gun.
Slashdot Mirror
Which does kind of make a person think of the Titanic and its lifeboat complement.
What it makes me think of is a passenger airplane. If something terrible enough happens you are all going to die. Your hope is that the plane is so well engineered that nothing terrible will happen. The shuttle is the same way. Once you take off you are committed.
Even if they launch again it will never be used. While we're on the subject of stuff never getting used here is a story: While I was at Thiokol I saw some cool composite boosters sitting out one day. I asked about them and was told that they next launch after the Challenger was supposed to be a military launch out of Edwards and they were using the composite boosters to have a greater payload capacity. Everybody had been real excited about the prospect of these lighter boosters. Of course after Challenger not only did all the old boosters get tossed (ok, probably recycled) but the nifty carbon fiber ones never got to go up either. Both types of course had the same o-ring design that was blamed for the Challenger disaster. Boosters cost $20 million a pop to manufacture and another $20 million to fill if I remember correctly.
Having worked on the shuttle program I can tell you that everyone involved would have done everything possible to save the crew. I agree that if they thought there was a good chance of a problem and a second launch was possible they would have gone up with a second shuttle and brought them back down.
Technically the main tank is never reused. It burns up after it is detached. So while it was the old style it was a "new" tank. The solid rocket boosters are recovered and reused.
Ron Dittemore made it clear in the Saturday press conference that there is no way to do an EVA in order to inspect the wing or tiles. The EVAs that are done are done in the cargo bay area. The arm that is used to go further out wasn't aboard this flight.
Also, there is no way they could have gone to the space station. The Columbia is the heaviest of the shuttles and they used the old style heavy main tank for liftoff. They can't get to the station's orbit with that configuration.
The only hope to rescue them that I could see would be to launch another shuttle to recue them. I don't know how quickly a shuttle can be launched in an emergency, but I would guess that it wouldn't be very quick. Also I doubt that such a situation has been trained for, which would make it all the more unlikely that it would be attempted.
Assuming that they knew about the damage the best way to save the ship and crew that I know of would be to abort the launch and land in Morocco. This is a contigency plan that the crew has trained for. Of course this would require them to know about the damage when it happened and not go on to orbit.
How long will that last? In another post I mentioned that in Spiderman all the billbaords in one scene were changed from what really appears there to compnaies that paid for placement. There was even a lawsuit over it.
As fot the Cheerios, that was a paid placement. Superman II is worse. The producers were paid $43k to place Marlboro's logo prominently in the movie and to not portray the brand in a negative light. To me this is worse than a banner ad, but maybe not as bad as a pop-up/under.
So what does paid product placement in movies count as? Why does Clark Kent's mom feed him Cheerios?
Please change the background on your website. I am assuming that it belongs to you due to the name. It is very difficult to read the text with that background pattern.
Thanks,
John
While we're on the subject, there is some actual overlap here between website ads and movies. Paid product placements are becoming more and more common. Spiderman went so far as to digitally replace the actual billboards in Times Square with brands associated with the company releasing the movie. Of course, maybe Spiderman is the AOL of movies...
In your own words:
IMO it's stupid to want to watch a movie that has been "sanitized".
You might say this is apples and oranges, but I say you are a bit of a hypocrite.
p.s. I approve of you viewing the web as you choose. However, you are stealing and the people that you call "wankers" are not.
freedestop.com is not freedesktop.org
The proudest moments of my professional life were spent working on the shuttle program. I felt that I was working on something important, something that would have a lasting impact. There are tears in my eyes as I write this. I am at a loss for words... There is a prayer in my heart for the families of these astronauts.
Why is that interesting? I think that people have a right to do this sort of thing. I don't choose to exercise that right. I don't even think that it is always a good idea. I just don't think that it is illegal or evil.
Some people like the way that CleanFlicks sanitizes movies. They know what to expect from them. They are making a choice to let those "wankers" edit them. Why does that bother you?
Other than that there is nothing offensive unless you count drinking beer as offensive. Please note that I didn't think the movie was offensive. In order to give you a counter-example, I saw "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" over the weekend and thought that was a bit distasteful. Certainly not for children.
My point is that services like the ones being discussed here allow prudish parents to watch G, PG and PG-13 movies with their children without any worries. The point is not to watch Showgirls with them or other movies that count on language/sex/violence to get their point across. These service give parents a finer level of control over what they bring into their own house. I think that choice is good in this case. I myself choose not to use such a service (for now) but I don't think that choice should be taken away.
The Rookie. A Disney movie.
If there is one thing that Roger Ebert is right about it is that the ratings system is terribly broken.
As for your point about G-rated movies, I have recently seen a G-rated movie that had unnecessary offensive language. I have no idea why it was in there, but if I had young children I wouldn't want them to hear it. ClearPlay would solve this problem. That is what it is for. It isn't so you can watch "Showgirls" with your 5 year old.
When have you been told this by CleanFlicks? Again you are flinging accusations without backup.
No, I don't have to buy from them, but that's not the point. My point was that the consumer-driven system is far better because they can determine what to clean and what to leave.
Actually that is a lot of the point. Nobody is forcing you to participate in CleanFlicks but you want to force people to not be able to use it. Both systems are consumer driven. People wouldn't participate in CleanFlicks if they weren't getting what they want as a consumer out of it. The difference is how fine grained the control is. The people who use this service think it is a better alternative than what Hollywood provides which is a simple take it or leave it approach. Unless of course you happen to watch movies on an airplane or network TV.
Wacko.
Thank you. That must be why I spend this much time responding to you. :)
See above. I didn't say the interactive system was good, I said it was better than the alternative, which is CleanFlicks.
I may have read your original hate-filled post incorrectly. And yes, you do hate those CleanFlicks bastards, admit it. Lets look at the post:
This is far better than those wankers over at CleanFlicks [cleanflicks.com] who not only have an agenda, but also infringe on the copyright of directors and producers (in fact they've been sued already for that very same reason).
A device that does that puts the power to choose what to see and what not to see in the hands of the consumer, where it belongs.
Now in the first paragraph you do say that this is "far better". The second paragraph goes even further and says that the on-the-fly system puts power "where it belongs", which you say, is in the hands of "the consumer". Now this leads me to think that of the three alternatives you would rank them this way:
1. Power in the hands of the consumer.
2. Power in the hands of Hollywood.
3. Power in the hands of the consumer who chooses to go to CleanFlicks.
I think that you would change #3 to "Power in the hands of CleanFlicks," right? Anyhow, have I read your orignal post incorrectly? You seem to be implying in it that power in the hands of the consumer is good, but now you claim that it is merely better. Does that mean it is still bad in your opinion? Seriously, I am trying to understand you here.
Technically they are not distributing it to third parties. CleanFlicks is a cooperative and you have to join the club to take home a movie. So you are not "renting" a movie, you are taking home a movie that you own in common with a bunch of other people.
It is obviously that there is enough of a market for edited movies to make money off them. Maybe not in the Northeast but there certainly is in the Mountain West and the South. Hollywood hasn't taken the bull by the horns here though so somebody else did. Now Hollywood is crying without offering an alternative. I say, "Too bad Hollywood. You had your chance. If you want to compete with these companies in the marketplace then fine, but don't give me this 'artistic integrity' crap. Not when I gew up knowing that Clark Kent had a giant box of Cheerios on his breakfast table."
ClearPlay is not merely providing you with a sheet of paper that tells you when to fast-forward.
If I distribute a list of when to press fast forward to avoid seeing Jar Jar that would bother you? What it I made a remote that could read that list and press the button for me? I am sure that you see where this is going.
What can I not do with my DVD beyond distributing copies of it? Are you also opposed to the recent trend of downloadable fan commentaries? Those are certainly a de facto derivate work.
What is your point? Do you think that their agenda is to edit movies in such a way as to convince you to join their church? Surely you give them too much credit. Why does everything have to have an "agenda" attached to it? "Oh no CleanFlicks is from Utah, there must be an agenda!" You are silly. In the interest of full disclosure, I grew up in Utah, however I have never made use of any CleanFlicks type service. Their "agenda" hasn't been far-reaching enough to force me to watch them. It probably hasn't bothered you too much either, has it?
CleanFlicks is making money off of consumer stupidity and lack of parenting skills... How about I just don't fscking buy the sneakers in the first place?
You are making an excellent stray man argument here. Let's take a less extreme example. Say "The Rookie", a G rated movie. Now I know this sort of thing probably doesn't offend you (that is why you are free to watch the unedited version) but the phrase, "Oh my God!" occurs more than once in the movie. What I am about to say will cause you to think that I am a nut. So be it. To me that language is more offensive than the adjective that you used to describe your hypothetical sneakers. If I had children I would prefer that they not hear that. Call me a wacko.
Furthermore, take broadcast TV. When they edit movies they pay huge amounts of money to the copyright owners (a cost that is of course added to the broadcast rights). Where is CleanFlicks incurring this expense? Shouldn't they? I think they should.
I don't think that the word "incurring" means what you think it means. Of course CleanFlicks is incurring an expense. They are buying the movies and spending the time and materials to edit them. Of course from the context it seems that you think "incurring" means give money to the copyright owners. Well CleanFlicks does that too when they buy the movie, right?
Alternately you could be saying that TV networks pay for the right to edit a movie over and above what they pay to simply broadcast it. If this is what you are saying, let me know. I have never heard of this practice but that certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
You still haven't addressed my main point, which is that while an on-the-fly system (which I agree is superior) and CleanFlick are different in some ways, they are not so different that one is commendable while the other is contemptible. Also, keep in mind that someone is going to have to make style-sheets, filters, or masks for each movie. These people will be execising less control over what you see than the people at CleanFlicks do, but it is still control. You can bet that because of the flexiblity that such systems offer CleanFlicks will move over to that model.
Ultimately consumers know what they are getting when the make use of a service like CleanFlicks or a filtering DVD player. If anyone is being "harmed" it is the consumers themselves in the privacy of their homes. Maybe we should protect them by outlawing such services and giving them fewer choices? Oh wait, now who has an agenda?
I agree that there is a distinction to be made between devices such as MovieMask which filter on the fly and CleanFlick, but in the end it is still the consumer that is choosing to view an edited movie. The difference is how fine grained the control is, not the concept itself.
Finally, you can bet that CleanFlicks will make use of the technology ASAP. There is no reason for them not to since there is no "agenda".
Oh wait, that would be a good thing. Let me think about this...
Ah ha! I have it!
In Soviet Russia YOU call telemarketers!
There.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
What are the odds that originally he found the POET title to be clever and sophisticated, only to discovered after publication that he was simply being self indulgent? Interesting that a book on interfaces and design would have such a poorly designed title. :)
Star Wars and Star Trek have set a certain expectation for what space combat will be like and that is what people want to see in a video game. I certainly encourage you to try to create something totatlly different, I just don't think it would have wide appeal.
Now if only RMS had seen us launching little penguins... he would have made us call it a GNU/Gun.