What makes comedy animation so much more acceptable than dramatic animation?
Nothing, really. The problem is that most anime has juvenile plotlines, characters that are two-dimensional in more ways than one, and really weak scripting and dialogue.
This can be made an advantage in episodic comedy, but obviously just sucks for continuous drama.
And let's not get into the whole "good anime vs. Americanized crap anime" thing, alright? In my quest to find some anime I really like, I've watched most of your favorites, many in the original Japanese with subtitles (and yes, I recognize that subtitles and translations are suboptimal), and even the "good" ones (Cowboy Bebop, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Ninja Scroll, Record of Lodoss War, Mononoke Hime, etc.) are all the animated equivalents of the X-Men comic books in terms of depth. Not bad if your audience is teenaged boys, but anyone else is going to get real bored real fast.
(Actually, that's unfair. Mononoke was mildly interesting, if horrendously drawn out. And Cowboy Bebop is actually sort of cool, but I think that's mostly because of the random blues riffs.)
Toshiba's product, dubbed the TX99, is geared for cost- and power-sensitive embedded applications, such as automotive telematics, office automation, multimedia home gateways, digital consumer products and networking, said Katsuji Fujita, vice president and executive vice president of the System LSI Division at Toshiba of Tokyo.
Where did you get the idea that I said he's a Free Software advocate.
I quote:
As far as 'best browser' goes, a Free Software advocate has to be incredibly hypocritical...
You didn't say it, but either you intentionally implied it or half of your response had fuck-all to do with his post. So which is it, are you a backpedaling ass or an irrelevant pontificator?
Judging from this response, I'm just going to assume you lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to comprehend the implications of your own words, let alone understand the simple analogy I drew. (My whole point was that he's not a fucking 'environmentalist', he just happens to 'drive a Prius'.)
I suppose that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, which is a sorry state of affairs. Since I'm being generous, I won't comment on your remarkable ability to make generalizations and then judge people based on their failure to adhere to your asinine expectations.
Um, nuclear reactors are big and heavy. Extremely big and extremely heavy.
In 1997, the Navy disposed of its first reactor compartment from a "Los Angeles" class submarine. Until then, the submarine reactor compartments had all been about 33 feet high, 40 feet long and weighed about 1,130 tons. The Los Angeles class compartments are slightly longer and considerably heavier, at about 1,680 tons.
Where did you get the idea that he's a "Free Software advocate"? Maybe he's just practical, and so finds that Slackware and Afterstep better meet his needs than Windows, but IE 5 better met his needs than Mozilla.
The automatic leap from the fact that someone uses free software to the idea that they hold some cherished belief in The Cause and spend their every waking moment promoting Free Software to others is a pretty big one to make.
You wouldn't call someone a hypocritical compact car advocate if they drove a Geo but said the Suburban has more head room, would you?
I've been renting 3-4 movies a week from Netflix. And you're right, it's a great deal for $20 a month, especially considering there are no late fees and I can return the discs at any mailbox.
When you take into account the fact that I've abandoned cable television, it pretty much pays for itself in entertainment value.
That was my first thought, too. The last thing we need is to take something that's currently distributed electronically and distribute it on truckloads of instant trash instead.
Sorry... I realized right after I submitted that I'd left out the actual point of my post, and then I had to go to work (writing software, incidentally).;)
Since I was almost there, I'll pick up where I left off (and where you agree): namely, people have to be compensated for at least most of the time they spend writing their software.
The catch is that in order to demand compensation, you have to be able to withhold supply. There are two ways of doing this: the product method, which is that you pay me or you get no copy of the software, or the service method, which is that you pay me or I stop working on the product.
The tricky part is that once someone has the product in source form, chances are they care a lot less whether you can continue working on it or not. So giving away your source weakens your ability to demand compensation, and in effect reduces you to asking politely.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that the concept of selling Free software is relatively new, and models are being explored, and some degree of success seems to be occurring amid the many simultaneous failures. I really hope that a solid model is hit upon and proven capable of supporting software development at the same level as the closed-source models. I firmly believe that one should "free" one's code whenever possible, and successful business models built on Free software will make sharing possible more often. Everybody likes to share. (Well, not everybody, but I do.)
My objection to the post to which I originally replied lies with the idea that keeping your software closed is immoral "hoarding". Hoarding is taking a resource that was at some point available to all and collecting it and keeping it all to yourself. It's a valid view of software patents IMO (anyone could have had your idea, and still might, independently), but not of closed source in general (where there's a product of time spent laboring). It's also extremely arrogant and pretentious to descend from on high, survey the scene, and proclaim that the practice of extending an economic model developed for trade of physical items to the more ethereal world of software is "immoral". It's an outgrowth of the way trade has been conducted since the beginning, a natural extension into a new domain. It's also what's worked and continues to work, and is often very fair to all those involved.
I do get it, fully. I just find the rhetoric of "good" Free Software versus "immoral" closed software a bit short-sighted and fairly obnoxious.
That depends on what ethical and moral framework you are evaluating RIGHT/WRONG within. From some points of view withholding ideas that have zero cost for reproduction is an immoral attempt to exert power over others by software hoarding. They would further argue that this proprietary framework retards development and stifles innovation.
Most sane people consider this idea absurd. Look, if I spend all of my time coming up with "ideas", I have to use them as my source of income; if I can't, I have to find some other source of income, which means I'm not spending any time coming up with those ideas anymore.
In other words, for decent software to be developed at anything other than a glacial pace, people have to be able to devote time to it, and they have to be compensated for that time in a way that allows them to eat, live under a roof, etc.
This is the same reason carpenters don't just walk around building houses for free. You can argue bits vs. atoms all day long, and babble about true cost of replication as much as you want, but the fact is it's the time spent that has to be paid for.
I'm all for freeing software whenever possible, but sometimes it just isn't reasonable to expect someone to give away their work.
You generally don't optimize for the worst case... I'd wager that a single process requiring all physical RAM and then some is a rare occurrence.
Besides, think about the access time differences between RAM and your hard drive... you're going from a few nanoseconds to a few milliseconds; that's a thousand times slower. Your test went from 15 minutes to 480 minutes, which is only an increase of a factor of 32. That means it was talking to swap what, 30% of the time?
I'm not entirely sure how the math breaks down here, exactly, but it really doesn't seem too bad considering the OS itself (and anything else you might have had running) was taking up some of that physical RAM, too.
Thanks to my grade school teachers' firm belief in reading comprehension skills, I noticed that the article claims Shrek has characters comprised of 1.5 million polygons, while the new Doom will display images comprised of 250,000 polygons.
Having seen Shrek, I know there is more onscreen at any given moment than a single character.
Those apples are nowhere near the size of those oranges.
Not entirely. It's also important to judge an energy storage method based on amount of waste byproduct (like dead battery cells), weight, speed of recharge, density (not the same as weight), cost, and cleanliness.
You're always going to put more energy into a storage device than you can effectively get back out. We can't all carry coal fires and turbines around with us. If these fuel cells are more reusable and more energy-dense than conventional batteries, they win. Even if you have to put a little more energy in per unit out.
No, the lesson here is to not be a fool with your money.
You don't send a guy $3000 with a payment method you can't stop for a product you've never laid eyes on. If the guy won't take a check and won't take payment through an escrow service, screw it. It's not worth the risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Will do, thanks. Looks like Lain and Perfect Blue are both in stock at Netflix... I'll have to find Jin-Roh elsewhere.
Nothing, really. The problem is that most anime has juvenile plotlines, characters that are two-dimensional in more ways than one, and really weak scripting and dialogue.
This can be made an advantage in episodic comedy, but obviously just sucks for continuous drama.
And let's not get into the whole "good anime vs. Americanized crap anime" thing, alright? In my quest to find some anime I really like, I've watched most of your favorites, many in the original Japanese with subtitles (and yes, I recognize that subtitles and translations are suboptimal), and even the "good" ones (Cowboy Bebop, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Ninja Scroll, Record of Lodoss War, Mononoke Hime, etc.) are all the animated equivalents of the X-Men comic books in terms of depth. Not bad if your audience is teenaged boys, but anyone else is going to get real bored real fast.
(Actually, that's unfair. Mononoke was mildly interesting, if horrendously drawn out. And Cowboy Bebop is actually sort of cool, but I think that's mostly because of the random blues riffs.)
So you've added a database to the cost. woo.
I quote:
You didn't say it, but either you intentionally implied it or half of your response had fuck-all to do with his post. So which is it, are you a backpedaling ass or an irrelevant pontificator?
Judging from this response, I'm just going to assume you lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to comprehend the implications of your own words, let alone understand the simple analogy I drew. (My whole point was that he's not a fucking 'environmentalist', he just happens to 'drive a Prius'.)
I suppose that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, which is a sorry state of affairs. Since I'm being generous, I won't comment on your remarkable ability to make generalizations and then judge people based on their failure to adhere to your asinine expectations.
Sure. The light would bounce right off. The heat, on the other hand... you've baked a potato before, right?
From the Oregon Office of Energy.
The automatic leap from the fact that someone uses free software to the idea that they hold some cherished belief in The Cause and spend their every waking moment promoting Free Software to others is a pretty big one to make.
You wouldn't call someone a hypocritical compact car advocate if they drove a Geo but said the Suburban has more head room, would you?
When you take into account the fact that I've abandoned cable television, it pretty much pays for itself in entertainment value.
I looked at the trap, Ray.
I suspect all the cashiers would be replaced with a couple of guards to make sure nobody "jumps the gate" (so to speak).
Talk about your giant step backward.
Since I was almost there, I'll pick up where I left off (and where you agree): namely, people have to be compensated for at least most of the time they spend writing their software.
The catch is that in order to demand compensation, you have to be able to withhold supply. There are two ways of doing this: the product method, which is that you pay me or you get no copy of the software, or the service method, which is that you pay me or I stop working on the product.
The tricky part is that once someone has the product in source form, chances are they care a lot less whether you can continue working on it or not. So giving away your source weakens your ability to demand compensation, and in effect reduces you to asking politely.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that the concept of selling Free software is relatively new, and models are being explored, and some degree of success seems to be occurring amid the many simultaneous failures. I really hope that a solid model is hit upon and proven capable of supporting software development at the same level as the closed-source models. I firmly believe that one should "free" one's code whenever possible, and successful business models built on Free software will make sharing possible more often. Everybody likes to share. (Well, not everybody, but I do.)
My objection to the post to which I originally replied lies with the idea that keeping your software closed is immoral "hoarding". Hoarding is taking a resource that was at some point available to all and collecting it and keeping it all to yourself. It's a valid view of software patents IMO (anyone could have had your idea, and still might, independently), but not of closed source in general (where there's a product of time spent laboring). It's also extremely arrogant and pretentious to descend from on high, survey the scene, and proclaim that the practice of extending an economic model developed for trade of physical items to the more ethereal world of software is "immoral". It's an outgrowth of the way trade has been conducted since the beginning, a natural extension into a new domain. It's also what's worked and continues to work, and is often very fair to all those involved.
I do get it, fully. I just find the rhetoric of "good" Free Software versus "immoral" closed software a bit short-sighted and fairly obnoxious.
Looks cool to me.
Most sane people consider this idea absurd. Look, if I spend all of my time coming up with "ideas", I have to use them as my source of income; if I can't, I have to find some other source of income, which means I'm not spending any time coming up with those ideas anymore.
In other words, for decent software to be developed at anything other than a glacial pace, people have to be able to devote time to it, and they have to be compensated for that time in a way that allows them to eat, live under a roof, etc.
This is the same reason carpenters don't just walk around building houses for free. You can argue bits vs. atoms all day long, and babble about true cost of replication as much as you want, but the fact is it's the time spent that has to be paid for.
I'm all for freeing software whenever possible, but sometimes it just isn't reasonable to expect someone to give away their work.
Flame on... I'll check in later.
Besides, think about the access time differences between RAM and your hard drive... you're going from a few nanoseconds to a few milliseconds; that's a thousand times slower. Your test went from 15 minutes to 480 minutes, which is only an increase of a factor of 32. That means it was talking to swap what, 30% of the time?
I'm not entirely sure how the math breaks down here, exactly, but it really doesn't seem too bad considering the OS itself (and anything else you might have had running) was taking up some of that physical RAM, too.
Having seen Shrek, I know there is more onscreen at any given moment than a single character.
Those apples are nowhere near the size of those oranges.
And by the time it runs out of power, the generators are online.
No real datacenter relies on a rack of BackUPS Pros. :)
You're always going to put more energy into a storage device than you can effectively get back out. We can't all carry coal fires and turbines around with us. If these fuel cells are more reusable and more energy-dense than conventional batteries, they win. Even if you have to put a little more energy in per unit out.
Anything that's bad for the Austin Powers franchise is Good For America.
reference 1
reference 2
reference 3, mentioning your movie
You're right, but eBay didn't do the screwing.
just a heads-up: the expression is "in like Flynn". As in Errol Flynn. You can google for the origin. ;)
(don't get me wrong, there's a six of Shiner Bock sitting in my fridge right now. I'm just curious.)
You don't send a guy $3000 with a payment method you can't stop for a product you've never laid eyes on. If the guy won't take a check and won't take payment through an escrow service, screw it. It's not worth the risk.
eBay didn't do anything wrong here.