Re:That's a funky organization scheme...
on
The Forever War
·
· Score: 1
Wow...that seems so disorganized to me...of course, I have my CD's organized alphabetically by artist, then chronologically within artist, with all of the CDs perfectly aligned in the case so that you can read the text on the CD itself when you open the case. I'm not anal or anything though, just ask my wife about my underwear on the floor...
If a few thousand other consumers feel the same way, they'll change or die!
Unforunately, a few thousand consumers boycotting their product isn't going to have a large enough of an effect to make them change their ways. A couple hundred thousand...now maybe you're talking, but a few thousand isn't likely to show up on their radars, or their profit charts.
That's a funky organization scheme...
on
The Forever War
·
· Score: 3, Funny
They're on my shelf next to Ender's Game.
...either that or you've got a small book collection. I mean Haldeman next to Card? or are you using titles? But then how do you find all of your Douglas Adams or Isaac Asimov books?
There should be no problem with having "IBM Windows," "Sun Windows," etc.
Are you sure you want twenty more versions of Windows out there? The Apple Computer/Apple Records dispute maps well to this situation. Both companies were allowed the same trademarked name since they were in such different industries. Had they been in similar industries, one of them would probably have had to change.
As for Lindows, I wonder why the "first syllable of Linux, second syllable of Windows" argument isn't more compelling. The Lindows group didn't change one letter of a trademark, it combined two words which were trademarked (which seems to be a pretty common practice) to indicate their product's abilities. Where the first situation implies "A Linux version of Windows -all the stability of Windows with the ease of configuration of Linux", the second situation implies "The abilities of both Linux and Windows." Admittly, that's a pretty fine distinction, and I'm not saying it's an airtight case for Lindows, but I wonder it they can use semantics and technicalities to make their case stronger.
My apologies for ranting. But honestly, have you ever done any followup with your student to see how your file organization methods work in the real world?
That's funny, I'm sitting here looking at a "My Documents" folder on my ancient Win95 laptop. (Actually, I long ago renamed it "Data" in order to play well with 16-bit apps, but it started life as "My Documents") I never used Office 95 much, but Office 97 always defaulted to "My Docs". I can't remember when it started (Win98/SE/ME) but now some apps create a "My Docs" if they don't find one, my nice comfy "Data" folder be damned.
"...with the desktop, its right in your face...its the easiest place to find anything on a windows computer.. and just cause you dont aggree with me, doesnt mean you should say my practices are idiotic. It works for my classes, and i've never had someone come back to me and question my lessons.
No...your practices are idoitic, and I'll call them as such. It works for your classes, because they're just classes and the people aren't doing any real work. No one's come back to you because they followed your advice and now they can't find your contact information among the hundred other items they have on their desktop.
Look, you're training these people to fight their computer. All you would have to do is instead of saying, "It's right there on the desktop!" is "It's right there in the My Documents folder! Right where Word expects to find it."
Have you ever seen a desktop with 100+ items on it? Have you ever had to find that one file the boss needs right way on such a desktop? Since it's a desktop, you can't easily re-arrange it by name or date or size, so an individual item is even harder to find. I doubt that you're telling them to keep the names short, so half the time Windows truncates the name of the file because it's so long, further confusing the issue. God forbid if they don't have Auto-Arrange turned on and twenty icons overlap.
"and if i had kids...and they got lost simply by stepping out of the room, yes, i would let them put their toys in a place that they are sure to be able to find..."
Ok, so you would let your child have all of his toys strewn all across his room rather then have them organized in the toy chest? After all, I guess the little tyke would know that Yucky Chucky is somewhere in the room, and of course the child doesn't throw a temper tantrum because he can't find Yucky Chucky under all the Legos, action figures, soiled laundry, Hot Wheel track, play forts, paper airplanes, discarded stuffed animals, and that thing you paid $250 for two months ago because he wouldn't stop crying until he got that you suspect is now broken beyond repair.
Funny, an executive throws a similar fit when he can't find the annual report on his desktop among 100 other files.
"whatever Joe User puts on his desktop doesnt make a bit of difference to me"
No, of course not, but it does matter to them. You've trained them to put all their files on the desktop, and now they can't find the tree because the forest is too thick.
"...i've been teaching computers for years, and everyone i've taught has learned consistantly and effectively, and my methods have never failed. if you MUST judge me, go out there, teach computer classes every night
I wonder, how much follow up do you do with your students? See, I helped the people that you must have trained, because I saw this all the time when I was still in IT. They'd come to me saying that they've lost their files, and I'd go to their desk and see literally hundreds of files on the desktop. If they let me, I'd drag everything into the My Documents directory (I'd actually show them how to move them themselves), and they'd universally go "Oh...that's much nicer!" People got more comfortable using the computer and less frustrated when I showed them this. They could find their files more easily and they didn't have to fight their computer by always changing the Open/Save dialoges to Desktop instead of leaving it alone to open/save in My Documents. I guess I should thank you for my job security.
You seem to be under the impression that people only have 10-15 files. In a classroom setting that might be right, but in the real world people deal with more files than comfortably fit on the desktop. I've seen other instructors do the same thing, and it always seem that they spent as much time telling people about this great invention of saving files to the desktop as they could by telling people to look for their documents in My Documents. Christ, it's not like Microsoft could have named it something more simple or made it any easier to find (since it's on the desktop, it's easy to find unless you clutter it up with 100 other files.) Your practices simply don't scale well into the real world.
"I reccomend to new users to save files they dont want to lose on their desktop just because its so much easier to remember where it is."
Pardon me, but that idiotic. Almost every base installation of Windows I've seen has a shortcut to My Documents on the desktop. Almost every common office Windows application defaults to save in My Documents. In later builds, Windows Explorer opens straight to the My Documents folder, and even hides the rest of the file system. So you're encouraging your users to ignore the built-in strategies for keeping their documents easy to find? Do you tell your kids to store their toys strewn across the house so that they can always find the Green Mega Man?
"to me its like saying "oh i can ride a bike now, so training wheels should be abolished, they only get in the way now"."
Actually, what the article is saying is "Hey training wheels are great, let's add twenty more and get rid of those big wheels that have all those hard to understand and dangerous spokes!"
I'd disagree with you that the desktop is required. It's a metaphor in the worst way. It adds a layer of complexity, forces a mindset on the user, and gets the analogy wrong.
In a sophisticated file system explorer, you wouldn't need a desktop. Navigate to a directory and click on a shortcut to the program (just like you navigate to a portion of the desktop and click on a shortcut to the program) Switch between programs via the sophisticated file explorer (just like you switch between programs via the desktop.)
Maybe I'm missing something because I've configured my own desktop the way I like, but I just don't get what's so great about a desktop that can't be re-created in the file system.
I say, banish the 'Desktop'! It confuses users. Teach the file tree! Standardize the file tree!
Daniel Loebl addresses the problem of complexity by attacking it from 180 degrees in the wrong direction. The desktop metaphor is a kludge to make things easier. Extending this kludge ad infinitum and to the exclusion of the hierarchical file system, as he suggests, creates a greater mess than where we're at now. How does he suggest we deal with 1,000, 500, or even 25 desktops? By "menu or toggle button". Is that paradigm really going to work with more than ten desktops?
He cites the different rules between desktops and file systems as the reason to kill off file systems, but he ignores the facts that the desktop's rules are arbitrary limitations due to the metaphor, while the file systems rules are based the actual limitations of the computer itself (generally speaking.) Which makes more sense to kill?
Here's what I would do if I sensed that someone was really having a problem with the whole desktop/file system concept: Kill the destop and create a folder (say, "Applications") and create shortcuts/aliases/links to all the programs the user would really need. You get all the benefits of simplified program selection without having to learn the desktop metaphor. What really killed the simplicity of the old system (finding the program executable and running it) was the expansion of programs to require more than just a single executable file.
"Zombie eyes." You've seen it dozens of times, it's a well understood cinematic convention. And you show him picking up a stone.
You don't explain what you mean by "zombie eyes", it's not that universal of a cinematic convention that it's readily apparent, so here's a couple of options of what you might mean, correct me if I'm wrong:
A Point of View shot, maybe with a mask to make it look like you're looking through their eyes with tunnel vision or
The character's eyes go glassy and s/he moves somewhat mechanically.
Yes I've seen both conventions many, many times. Frankly both are overused and neither is very effective. The first option is done in horror flicks as a cheap way to build tension. Here it would be odd, it would give far more significance to what is really a small plot point. The second option raises all kinds of questions. Why has the character become this way? Is he in a trance? Has he been possesed? Is he drunk? What's the source of this state?
This convention (either way you might mean, but I'm pretty sure you mean my second interpretation) causes more problems than it solves, especially in this case where Tolkien himself leaves Pippin's motivation vague. Vague motivations make you think. That's good in a book, because it draws you more into the book's world. But it kills a movie, because if the audience is thinking, it means that they've been pulled out of the suspension of disbelief.
No, I don't understand you. "True to the book" means Pippin doing it through (apparent) compulsion. In the film, he does it because he's a clutz.
What I mean is that by changing some small inconsequential detail in the book, the film may be more true to the book as a whole.
Look at Harry Potter. In the book, Harry goes through all sorts of emotions through the story. In the movie, Columbus tries to fit in every little plot and color point, leaving no time for Harry to demostrate the varied emotions, growth, or any sort of character development. Harry becomes a wide-eyed, wonder filled, two dimensional moron.
...don't misinterpret my words out of context as an attack on Jackson.
I was responding to a direct point that you actually made. Oh...I'm sorry, you must mean that "Again, minor point, but why change it, other than ego?" wasn't an attack on Jackson?
Not a "moron", a "fool". Remember?
Of couse I remember. But how is an audience going to take it? In the book, we can easily see how long they've been in Moria, and it's not unbelievable that Pippin would be curious. In a movie, not five minutes before this scene, the audience was reminded (probably) time and time again how dangerous Moria was and how careful the Fellowship had to be. Regardless of how Jackson shows the passage of time, the warnings are fresh in the audience's mind when Pippin takes his foolish actions (whatever they may be.) To the audience, Pippin would be a moron to ignore such strong warnings so soon (in their time) after the warning was given.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Jackson, in order to make Pippin a fool, rather than a moron, had him accidentally knock a skeleton into the well rather than throw a pebble into it.
Pardon me for being so strident, but I'm just a little sick and tired of hearing so many Monday-morning directors before they even see what their critizing (or celebrating.) Bitching and moaning about Peter Jackson on LotR. Complaining that Pete Jones isn't fighting hard enough or is fighting too hard on Project Greenlight. Saying that Chris Columbus is doing stunning work on Harry Potter (pre-release.) For example, how do you know for certain that Pippin accidentally knocks the skeleton into the well? Sure you've seen the previews, but how do you know that there isn't a take where Pippin purposefully knocks the skeleton into the well? I'm not even going to go out on a limb and say that Jackson has made an "astonishing adaptation." Even if I did know for a fact that some change was made, I wouldn't be moaning about it, because I haven't seen the change in the context of the whole film. A film is more than a sum of the scenes, and I just think that complaining about changes, without seeing them in context of the whole film, is a waste of time.
I was an idiot, it wasn't until I saw this/. article about book publishers vs. libraries that I even thought about looking for Usenet newsgroup for e-books. Before that, I did a lot searching on Google. Be prepared to find a lot of dead-ends. Personally, I'd find a way to get to Usenet (and, sorry, Google Groups doesn't archive the "binaries" groups.)
You're missing my point. Usenet was never intended to be a private forum. Posting to the Usenet is not like writing in a diary or calling a confidential support hotline, it's like writing on a New York City unisex bathroom stall wall.
I think posterity should outweigh privacy for those that hold privacy so cheaply. Ask yourself, what would have prevented you from reading that same message, besides the fact that you don't read that particular newsgroup? At least your relative's post didn't end up as a headline in his local paper.
Erore, how do you rate that you've already seen the full movie?
If you haven't seen the movie, how do you know that Frodo isn't defiant to the Nazgul? Sure you've seen the same clip everyone else has, and sure you've heard rumors, but really, how do you know what Frodo does?
"A skeleton knocked down a well accidentally is not a stone thrown down it on purpose. Again, minor point, but why change it, other than ego? The original situation is functionally identical and leads to exactly the same result." (Emp. added)
Your sad devotion to that ancient text has not helped you open up your eyes to the needs of film. If it's functionally identical, maybe there was a good reason for changing it? Let's think about this a minute...how would you show, on film, Pippin's being "curiously attracted" to the well? How would you show his "sudden impulse" to explain why he tosses the stone? How would you shoot the scene so that it was clear what Pippin was doing? How would the audience know that it was just a small stone and not, say, the Ring?
There's lots of problems taking a text and making a movie out of it. There's lots of things that can be explained in a single sentence that would take several minutes to show on film. By making changes, you can actually be more true to the book. Columbus made this mistake in Harry Potter, he was so intent to get everything that was in the book into the movie, that Harry ends up looking like a wide-eyed moron. All of this stuff happens to him but his character doesn't develop.
So Jackson decides to save several minutes of screen time and a vague motivation to have Pippin accidentally bump the skeleton into the well. This action isn't all that incongruent with Pippin's character and, as you mention, achieves exactly the same result. Maybe if you looked past the cover of the book, you'd see that maybe, just maybe, it isn't about Jackson's ego. Maybe he just wants to make a good movie. If he hadn't made the change, every non-Tolkien purist would ask "Now why the hell did Pippin just do that? What a moron." Is that the Pippin you're looking for?
-sk
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX
on
The Hype of the Rings
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Please...
I own a copy of the Lord of the Rings, but I still went to alt.binaries.e-books and downloaded the trilogy in several electronic formats. Same thing with several other books I own. Hell, I'm even scanning in a book (for personal reasons) that's been out of print for a decade and won't come out of copyright for another 75 years if the author were to keel over today. In 75 years, there might be only a handful of physical copies of the book, but the electronic version will continue to live.
You know what, I still plan on buying at least one more physical copy of LotR at some point, if not more. If the authors and publishers would offer the books in their own electronic format that I was confident I could reuse when I upgrade to a new machine, I'd buy them (no typos after all.) The electronic format allows me more freedom to enjoy the writing without having to lug around an eight pound book along, especially since I've already got the laptop/pda/whatever. The holier-than-thou freaks in alt.fan.tolkien be damned, I want a more useful version of the book I've already paid for, and will pay for again if only they would put it in a format I want it in.
If I'm so inclined, I'll d'load a DivX rip, thank you very much. Because I'll go see the movie in the theater, probably more than once. And once the DVD comes out, I'll probably get that as well, and when the Director's Cut Special Boxed Edition of the film trilogy comes out, I'll get raped again (There's no more surefire way to ensure a DVD gets a "new, enhanced" edition than to buy the "old, crappy" version.)
The Tolkien estate, Peter Jackson, and New Line will get enough of my money on this that I think they'll overlook if I've got a DivX version sitting in drawer somewhere (I'm not going to watch it again after I get the DVD.) I've got a rip of a certain big sci-fi movie that I never watch anymore thanks to the DVD, but I don't think any 'stormtroopers' are going to knock down my door. I think of it this way: Since the USSC ruled timeshifting was legal in the Betamax case, I'm just timeshifting in reverse.
Look, I agree with you that if someone grabs a rip and doesn't see the movie in the theater or buy the DVD, they're an ass. But to make a blanket statement that everyone who d'loads it is an ass is a little myopic. For many of the rippers, the powers that be are going to get their money, but they just want to see it now. Just because someone rips it, doesn't mean that they aren't going to leave their computer, go to the theater, mix with fellow geeks and lovers and LOTR and watch this in a theater, 40 feet wide in Dolby, as it was meant to be seen. So get off your high horse and let me infringe copyright seeing as I've paid and will pay enough to enjoy something in my own way.
In the book, i believe peregrin drops a pebble into the well to see how deep it is... Fron what ive seen of the trailers, hes messing with an orc or dwarf skeleton and it drops in.
Ah, crap, you're right.
Ok, how anal-retentive do you have to be to let whether Pippin drops a small rock or small skeleton down a well keep you from watching what looks to be a pretty decent looking film?
I agree with you. What worries me is that parents might think that this is the real "Dangerous Toys" list, and disregard the list that comes out that has the toys that can cause the most injuries. I can see it now, "Well I kept that dangerous Street Fighter game away from my kid, I didn't realize Dr. Bob's Biohazard Fun Bag would be bad for him as well!"
The Usenet was IMHO never as public as the web, but had much more a private character, where people could say what they only wanted to know certain groups.
While Usenet certainly isn't as public as the web, if anybody posted to the Usenet thinking it wouldn't be as public as on the Web, they were deluding themselves. It's not like there's any sort of security on Usenet to block anyone from reading what you posted. Indeed, Usenet is set up to be as open as possible.
What's scary is that someone thinks it's scary to be archiving public forums. This isn't Big Brother. Just imagine losing all the history contained in Linus' various Usenet posts.
I hope you're not implying that the movie will make only $150 million.
What I'm implying is that New Line, when they greenlighted this project figured that they would need to make $100 million/movie to break even. I'm sure they planned on making some money, so they want to gross at least $150 million on this one. That's not bad, it's a $50 million profit.
Remember, I'm responding to a guy who said that if New Line didn't make most of the initial $300 million on FotR, the other two would be released straight to video. I was merely pointing out that the studio made a decision that they would need to only make $100-150 million per movie to do well. They wouldn't judge that a movie is a flop just because it didn't break into the Top 20 Grossing Films of All Time. Also remember that Gladiator only made $180 million. $150 million isn't that shabby. Do I think it will make more? I think FotR has a good shot to break $200 million, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Look at the Top 20 Grossing Movies of All Time (US Box Office - yes it's Amerio-centric, sue me). One of the things that they have in common is that they were all social phenomenon. Everyone saw Staw Wars and Forest Gump, every teenage girl saw Titantic 20 times, everyone talked about Sixth Sense, everyone cried when Home Alone got a sequel. Ok, ok, Twister is an exception (how did that get in there anyway?) Now, will FotR become such a phenomenon? It very well could, but to say that it will is to set yourself up for Pearl Harbor. New Line isn't betting that FotR will out-gross Independence Day, it's betting that it will out-gross Die Hard 3, and hoping it'll out-gross Jerry McGuire. But if it only outgrosses Crocodile Dundee II, they still win.
Straight to video is impossible.
That was essentially my argument. Thanks for backing me up. Again, I'm responding to a guy who said that if New Line didn't make most of the initial $300 million on FotR, the other two would be released straight to video. I was saying that straight to video would be stupid because of the loss of potential money out there for a theatrical release. Now I know that a straight to video would be stupid also because of the contract involved. (BTW - don't think the contract is a complete assurance that all three will get the six week theatrical release. If FotR were to be a complete flop and only bring in $1 million revenue, you can bet New Line will be renegotiating the contract sooner than you can say, "But the contract says...!")
I found Two Towers to be my favorite installment of the trilogy.
I didn't mean any disrespect to TT. Revenue doesn't have any relation to quality though. Empire Strikes back was the lowest grossing Star Wars film (including Ep. 1) but is arguably the best of the four so far. I think FotR will do well because of all of the hype over the past two years, RotK will do well because people will have had two years to see the other two and get primed for the finale. TT will do less well if for no other reason than because it's stuck in the middle. No offense, but basing revenue projections on your own like or dislike of a book or script is a sure-fire way to be wrong.
The trailors have had enough crap-looking not-in-the-book moments to put me off seeing the film
How anal-retentive do you have to be to let such little things keep you from watching what looks to be a pretty decent looking film? I mean, come on:
Nazgul chasing hobbits on a dock - For crying out loud, this isn't that huge of a change. The hobbits knew that they were being chased, and from the book itself "On the far stage, under the distant lamps, they could just make out a figure: it looked like a dark black bundle left behind. But as they looked it seemed to move and sway this way and that, as if searching the ground. It then crawled, or went crouching, back into the gloom beyond the lamps." So the movie version just has the Nazgul catch up to them before they cross the river rather than after.
some bint with a bow challenging the Riders at a ford - I assume you're talking about Arwen. Come on, it's not like Glorfindel is some major character. If Arwen had replaced Legolas, I'd be pissed, but this is really a minor plot point, and it's a good way for them to boost Arwen's role without changing the story much. Now whether Arwen's role should be boosted is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't make the movie a piece of crap either way they go.
complete fuck-up of the creepy Moria tapper-in-the-well scene - Actually, from what I've seen, this one scene that looks pretty true to the story to me.
It's ironic, I think Jones' version of Lord of the Rings will be more satisfying than Columbus' version of Harry Potter, not despite the plot changes, but because of them. Columbus made Harry into a moronic wide-eyed dork by having events fly by the screen just because they were in the book. Jones appears to at least keep the right tone of the story. If he does that by changing a minor plot point here and there, so be it. I want to see the Lord of the Rings, not Ferryrider Who Realized He Was In Mortal Danger After Crossing the River.
I doubt it. They probably expect to recover between a third and half the cost on the first movie (ie $100-150 million) then the mostof the rest of the up-front costs on the second movie, leaving the third movie to be mostly or pure profit. Merchandising dollars, which they've been for several months now with movie related books, etc..., help pad the bottom line.
Straight to video would waste the potential theatrical take, even if the first movie tanks, there's still enough die-hard Tolkien fans and pure fantasy fans for the second and third films to bring in enough revenue to cover the theatrical release and some money on the side. Hey, didn't even "Dungeons & Dragons" make money?
My guess would be that if the first film tanks, the second film would be released with the same production values (maybe not as much hype), but would be released to video much sooner. The third film would probably be rushed out the door with much lower production standards (worse special effects, cheaper soundtrack, no redubbing lines to cover on-location mistakes, certainly no more new photography (yes, I know they're done with principle shooting, but I could see them going back for more if need be)) and go to video quickly as well. That way, New Line will still get the theatrical take, but can start bringing in video revenue quickly to start making up the losses. Never the less, all three will be made and will make it into theaters.
Note that I don't expect the films to tank. I expect "Fellowship of the Ring" to do quite well, "Two Towers" to do a little less well, and "Return of the King" to do better than "Fellowship". I don't know if the theatrical take will reach $300 million, but I wouldn't be surprised. Even if it just breaks even in the theaters, New Line wins big with all of the merchadising and potential video revenues.
There was a bit of embarassment when my dad discovered how to search for my name on groups.google.com, but there were a lot more things that he was proud of. He didn't necessarily understand them, but he could see that they were well received.
I guess my dad's going to find out that I'm a gay, monster-truck driving Air Force General. I wonder what'll shock him the most. It must just be another of the 'benefits' having a common name.
-sk (Michael|Mike Ryan)
I don't know if you were reading before the slashcode was released. Took forever. When everyone bitched about it, CT's answer was "every time someone asked for the source, I pushed it back a day". That is a striking example of his maturity.
No... it's a striking example of how whiny people can get when they're getting something for free. Look, it started off as Taco's code, with which he can do anything he wanted to with it. He didn't have open it up to anybody.
I never bought the arguments that because/. was so intertwined with the open source movement that/code had to be open source too. Sure it would have been logically inconsistent, but then when are people ever logically consistent.
It would have been a different thing had Taco been talking up how open/. was and then never released anything. But even during all the whining that I remember, there was always an ancient tarball of the/code sitting around. Whenever I saw or read Taco talking about/. or/code, he always said "Yeah, it's open, but we haven't released a version for quite a while. I'll release it when its ready for public consumption." (or words to that effect) He was almost always apologetic that the source hadn't been updated. But you know what? It was his code and it was his right to do whatever the hell he wanted to do with it. How would you like it if everyone demanded to read your version of the Great American Novel even though the rough draft was only half done? (I know, I know...I'm an Amerio-centric pig...whatever.)
This board is not run by petty tyrants. It's run by good people who are sick and tired of being flamed for every minor mistake. Its success has come in spite of the FP'ers who add absolutely nothing to the discussion (although I admit some of the trolls are pretty funny.)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow...that seems so disorganized to me...of course, I have my CD's organized alphabetically by artist, then chronologically within artist, with all of the CDs perfectly aligned in the case so that you can read the text on the CD itself when you open the case. I'm not anal or anything though, just ask my wife about my underwear on the floor...
-sk
As for Lindows, I wonder why the "first syllable of Linux, second syllable of Windows" argument isn't more compelling. The Lindows group didn't change one letter of a trademark, it combined two words which were trademarked (which seems to be a pretty common practice) to indicate their product's abilities. Where the first situation implies "A Linux version of Windows -all the stability of Windows with the ease of configuration of Linux", the second situation implies "The abilities of both Linux and Windows." Admittly, that's a pretty fine distinction, and I'm not saying it's an airtight case for Lindows, but I wonder it they can use semantics and technicalities to make their case stronger.
-sk
My apologies for ranting. But honestly, have you ever done any followup with your student to see how your file organization methods work in the real world?
That's funny, I'm sitting here looking at a "My Documents" folder on my ancient Win95 laptop. (Actually, I long ago renamed it "Data" in order to play well with 16-bit apps, but it started life as "My Documents") I never used Office 95 much, but Office 97 always defaulted to "My Docs". I can't remember when it started (Win98/SE/ME) but now some apps create a "My Docs" if they don't find one, my nice comfy "Data" folder be damned.
Look, you're training these people to fight their computer. All you would have to do is instead of saying, "It's right there on the desktop!" is "It's right there in the My Documents folder! Right where Word expects to find it."
Have you ever seen a desktop with 100+ items on it? Have you ever had to find that one file the boss needs right way on such a desktop? Since it's a desktop, you can't easily re-arrange it by name or date or size, so an individual item is even harder to find. I doubt that you're telling them to keep the names short, so half the time Windows truncates the name of the file because it's so long, further confusing the issue. God forbid if they don't have Auto-Arrange turned on and twenty icons overlap.
Ok, so you would let your child have all of his toys strewn all across his room rather then have them organized in the toy chest? After all, I guess the little tyke would know that Yucky Chucky is somewhere in the room, and of course the child doesn't throw a temper tantrum because he can't find Yucky Chucky under all the Legos, action figures, soiled laundry, Hot Wheel track, play forts, paper airplanes, discarded stuffed animals, and that thing you paid $250 for two months ago because he wouldn't stop crying until he got that you suspect is now broken beyond repair.Funny, an executive throws a similar fit when he can't find the annual report on his desktop among 100 other files.
No, of course not, but it does matter to them. You've trained them to put all their files on the desktop, and now they can't find the tree because the forest is too thick. I wonder, how much follow up do you do with your students? See, I helped the people that you must have trained, because I saw this all the time when I was still in IT. They'd come to me saying that they've lost their files, and I'd go to their desk and see literally hundreds of files on the desktop. If they let me, I'd drag everything into the My Documents directory (I'd actually show them how to move them themselves), and they'd universally go "Oh...that's much nicer!" People got more comfortable using the computer and less frustrated when I showed them this. They could find their files more easily and they didn't have to fight their computer by always changing the Open/Save dialoges to Desktop instead of leaving it alone to open/save in My Documents. I guess I should thank you for my job security.You seem to be under the impression that people only have 10-15 files. In a classroom setting that might be right, but in the real world people deal with more files than comfortably fit on the desktop. I've seen other instructors do the same thing, and it always seem that they spent as much time telling people about this great invention of saving files to the desktop as they could by telling people to look for their documents in My Documents. Christ, it's not like Microsoft could have named it something more simple or made it any easier to find (since it's on the desktop, it's easy to find unless you clutter it up with 100 other files.) Your practices simply don't scale well into the real world.
-sk
-sk
In a sophisticated file system explorer, you wouldn't need a desktop. Navigate to a directory and click on a shortcut to the program (just like you navigate to a portion of the desktop and click on a shortcut to the program) Switch between programs via the sophisticated file explorer (just like you switch between programs via the desktop.)
Maybe I'm missing something because I've configured my own desktop the way I like, but I just don't get what's so great about a desktop that can't be re-created in the file system.
-sk
He cites the different rules between desktops and file systems as the reason to kill off file systems, but he ignores the facts that the desktop's rules are arbitrary limitations due to the metaphor, while the file systems rules are based the actual limitations of the computer itself (generally speaking.) Which makes more sense to kill?
Here's what I would do if I sensed that someone was really having a problem with the whole desktop/file system concept: Kill the destop and create a folder (say, "Applications") and create shortcuts/aliases/links to all the programs the user would really need. You get all the benefits of simplified program selection without having to learn the desktop metaphor. What really killed the simplicity of the old system (finding the program executable and running it) was the expansion of programs to require more than just a single executable file.
-sk
Ah, crap, you're right. I'm thinking of Pete Jones of Project Greenlight while talking about Peter Jackson of LotR. My bad.
- A Point of View shot, maybe with a mask to make it look like you're looking through their eyes with tunnel vision or
- The character's eyes go glassy and s/he moves somewhat mechanically.
Yes I've seen both conventions many, many times. Frankly both are overused and neither is very effective. The first option is done in horror flicks as a cheap way to build tension. Here it would be odd, it would give far more significance to what is really a small plot point. The second option raises all kinds of questions. Why has the character become this way? Is he in a trance? Has he been possesed? Is he drunk? What's the source of this state?This convention (either way you might mean, but I'm pretty sure you mean my second interpretation) causes more problems than it solves, especially in this case where Tolkien himself leaves Pippin's motivation vague. Vague motivations make you think. That's good in a book, because it draws you more into the book's world. But it kills a movie, because if the audience is thinking, it means that they've been pulled out of the suspension of disbelief.
What I mean is that by changing some small inconsequential detail in the book, the film may be more true to the book as a whole.Look at Harry Potter. In the book, Harry goes through all sorts of emotions through the story. In the movie, Columbus tries to fit in every little plot and color point, leaving no time for Harry to demostrate the varied emotions, growth, or any sort of character development. Harry becomes a wide-eyed, wonder filled, two dimensional moron.
I was responding to a direct point that you actually made. Oh...I'm sorry, you must mean that "Again, minor point, but why change it, other than ego?" wasn't an attack on Jackson? Of couse I remember. But how is an audience going to take it? In the book, we can easily see how long they've been in Moria, and it's not unbelievable that Pippin would be curious. In a movie, not five minutes before this scene, the audience was reminded (probably) time and time again how dangerous Moria was and how careful the Fellowship had to be. Regardless of how Jackson shows the passage of time, the warnings are fresh in the audience's mind when Pippin takes his foolish actions (whatever they may be.) To the audience, Pippin would be a moron to ignore such strong warnings so soon (in their time) after the warning was given.Perhaps, just perhaps, Jackson, in order to make Pippin a fool, rather than a moron, had him accidentally knock a skeleton into the well rather than throw a pebble into it.
Pardon me for being so strident, but I'm just a little sick and tired of hearing so many Monday-morning directors before they even see what their critizing (or celebrating.) Bitching and moaning about Peter Jackson on LotR. Complaining that Pete Jones isn't fighting hard enough or is fighting too hard on Project Greenlight. Saying that Chris Columbus is doing stunning work on Harry Potter (pre-release.) For example, how do you know for certain that Pippin accidentally knocks the skeleton into the well? Sure you've seen the previews, but how do you know that there isn't a take where Pippin purposefully knocks the skeleton into the well? I'm not even going to go out on a limb and say that Jackson has made an "astonishing adaptation." Even if I did know for a fact that some change was made, I wouldn't be moaning about it, because I haven't seen the change in the context of the whole film. A film is more than a sum of the scenes, and I just think that complaining about changes, without seeing them in context of the whole film, is a waste of time.
-sk
-sk
I think posterity should outweigh privacy for those that hold privacy so cheaply. Ask yourself, what would have prevented you from reading that same message, besides the fact that you don't read that particular newsgroup? At least your relative's post didn't end up as a headline in his local paper.
-sk
If you haven't seen the movie, how do you know that Frodo isn't defiant to the Nazgul? Sure you've seen the same clip everyone else has, and sure you've heard rumors, but really, how do you know what Frodo does?
-sk
There's lots of problems taking a text and making a movie out of it. There's lots of things that can be explained in a single sentence that would take several minutes to show on film. By making changes, you can actually be more true to the book. Columbus made this mistake in Harry Potter, he was so intent to get everything that was in the book into the movie, that Harry ends up looking like a wide-eyed moron. All of this stuff happens to him but his character doesn't develop.
So Jackson decides to save several minutes of screen time and a vague motivation to have Pippin accidentally bump the skeleton into the well. This action isn't all that incongruent with Pippin's character and, as you mention, achieves exactly the same result. Maybe if you looked past the cover of the book, you'd see that maybe, just maybe, it isn't about Jackson's ego. Maybe he just wants to make a good movie. If he hadn't made the change, every non-Tolkien purist would ask "Now why the hell did Pippin just do that? What a moron." Is that the Pippin you're looking for?
-sk
I own a copy of the Lord of the Rings, but I still went to alt.binaries.e-books and downloaded the trilogy in several electronic formats. Same thing with several other books I own. Hell, I'm even scanning in a book (for personal reasons) that's been out of print for a decade and won't come out of copyright for another 75 years if the author were to keel over today. In 75 years, there might be only a handful of physical copies of the book, but the electronic version will continue to live.
You know what, I still plan on buying at least one more physical copy of LotR at some point, if not more. If the authors and publishers would offer the books in their own electronic format that I was confident I could reuse when I upgrade to a new machine, I'd buy them (no typos after all.) The electronic format allows me more freedom to enjoy the writing without having to lug around an eight pound book along, especially since I've already got the laptop/pda/whatever. The holier-than-thou freaks in alt.fan.tolkien be damned, I want a more useful version of the book I've already paid for, and will pay for again if only they would put it in a format I want it in.
If I'm so inclined, I'll d'load a DivX rip, thank you very much. Because I'll go see the movie in the theater, probably more than once. And once the DVD comes out, I'll probably get that as well, and when the Director's Cut Special Boxed Edition of the film trilogy comes out, I'll get raped again (There's no more surefire way to ensure a DVD gets a "new, enhanced" edition than to buy the "old, crappy" version.)
The Tolkien estate, Peter Jackson, and New Line will get enough of my money on this that I think they'll overlook if I've got a DivX version sitting in drawer somewhere (I'm not going to watch it again after I get the DVD.) I've got a rip of a certain big sci-fi movie that I never watch anymore thanks to the DVD, but I don't think any 'stormtroopers' are going to knock down my door. I think of it this way: Since the USSC ruled timeshifting was legal in the Betamax case, I'm just timeshifting in reverse.
Look, I agree with you that if someone grabs a rip and doesn't see the movie in the theater or buy the DVD, they're an ass. But to make a blanket statement that everyone who d'loads it is an ass is a little myopic. For many of the rippers, the powers that be are going to get their money, but they just want to see it now. Just because someone rips it, doesn't mean that they aren't going to leave their computer, go to the theater, mix with fellow geeks and lovers and LOTR and watch this in a theater, 40 feet wide in Dolby, as it was meant to be seen. So get off your high horse and let me infringe copyright seeing as I've paid and will pay enough to enjoy something in my own way.
Ah, hell...there goes the karma...
-sk
Ok, how anal-retentive do you have to be to let whether Pippin drops a small rock or small skeleton down a well keep you from watching what looks to be a pretty decent looking film?
-sk
I agree with you. What worries me is that parents might think that this is the real "Dangerous Toys" list, and disregard the list that comes out that has the toys that can cause the most injuries. I can see it now, "Well I kept that dangerous Street Fighter game away from my kid, I didn't realize Dr. Bob's Biohazard Fun Bag would be bad for him as well!"
What's scary is that someone thinks it's scary to be archiving public forums. This isn't Big Brother. Just imagine losing all the history contained in Linus' various Usenet posts.
-sk
Remember, I'm responding to a guy who said that if New Line didn't make most of the initial $300 million on FotR, the other two would be released straight to video. I was merely pointing out that the studio made a decision that they would need to only make $100-150 million per movie to do well. They wouldn't judge that a movie is a flop just because it didn't break into the Top 20 Grossing Films of All Time. Also remember that Gladiator only made $180 million. $150 million isn't that shabby. Do I think it will make more? I think FotR has a good shot to break $200 million, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Look at the Top 20 Grossing Movies of All Time (US Box Office - yes it's Amerio-centric, sue me). One of the things that they have in common is that they were all social phenomenon. Everyone saw Staw Wars and Forest Gump, every teenage girl saw Titantic 20 times, everyone talked about Sixth Sense, everyone cried when Home Alone got a sequel. Ok, ok, Twister is an exception (how did that get in there anyway?) Now, will FotR become such a phenomenon? It very well could, but to say that it will is to set yourself up for Pearl Harbor. New Line isn't betting that FotR will out-gross Independence Day, it's betting that it will out-gross Die Hard 3, and hoping it'll out-gross Jerry McGuire. But if it only outgrosses Crocodile Dundee II, they still win.
That was essentially my argument. Thanks for backing me up. Again, I'm responding to a guy who said that if New Line didn't make most of the initial $300 million on FotR, the other two would be released straight to video. I was saying that straight to video would be stupid because of the loss of potential money out there for a theatrical release. Now I know that a straight to video would be stupid also because of the contract involved. (BTW - don't think the contract is a complete assurance that all three will get the six week theatrical release. If FotR were to be a complete flop and only bring in $1 million revenue, you can bet New Line will be renegotiating the contract sooner than you can say, "But the contract says...!") I didn't mean any disrespect to TT. Revenue doesn't have any relation to quality though. Empire Strikes back was the lowest grossing Star Wars film (including Ep. 1) but is arguably the best of the four so far. I think FotR will do well because of all of the hype over the past two years, RotK will do well because people will have had two years to see the other two and get primed for the finale. TT will do less well if for no other reason than because it's stuck in the middle. No offense, but basing revenue projections on your own like or dislike of a book or script is a sure-fire way to be wrong.-sk
- Nazgul chasing hobbits on a dock - For crying out loud, this isn't that huge of a change. The hobbits knew that they were being chased, and from the book itself "On the far stage, under the distant lamps, they could just make out a figure: it looked like a dark black bundle left behind. But as they looked it seemed to move and sway this way and that, as if searching the ground. It then crawled, or went crouching, back into the gloom beyond the lamps." So the movie version just has the Nazgul catch up to them before they cross the river rather than after.
- some bint with a bow challenging the Riders at a ford - I assume you're talking about Arwen. Come on, it's not like Glorfindel is some major character. If Arwen had replaced Legolas, I'd be pissed, but this is really a minor plot point, and it's a good way for them to boost Arwen's role without changing the story much. Now whether Arwen's role should be boosted is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't make the movie a piece of crap either way they go.
- complete fuck-up of the creepy Moria tapper-in-the-well scene - Actually, from what I've seen, this one scene that looks pretty true to the story to me.
It's ironic, I think Jones' version of Lord of the Rings will be more satisfying than Columbus' version of Harry Potter, not despite the plot changes, but because of them. Columbus made Harry into a moronic wide-eyed dork by having events fly by the screen just because they were in the book. Jones appears to at least keep the right tone of the story. If he does that by changing a minor plot point here and there, so be it. I want to see the Lord of the Rings, not Ferryrider Who Realized He Was In Mortal Danger After Crossing the River.-sk
Straight to video would waste the potential theatrical take, even if the first movie tanks, there's still enough die-hard Tolkien fans and pure fantasy fans for the second and third films to bring in enough revenue to cover the theatrical release and some money on the side. Hey, didn't even "Dungeons & Dragons" make money?
My guess would be that if the first film tanks, the second film would be released with the same production values (maybe not as much hype), but would be released to video much sooner. The third film would probably be rushed out the door with much lower production standards (worse special effects, cheaper soundtrack, no redubbing lines to cover on-location mistakes, certainly no more new photography (yes, I know they're done with principle shooting, but I could see them going back for more if need be)) and go to video quickly as well. That way, New Line will still get the theatrical take, but can start bringing in video revenue quickly to start making up the losses. Never the less, all three will be made and will make it into theaters.
Note that I don't expect the films to tank. I expect "Fellowship of the Ring" to do quite well, "Two Towers" to do a little less well, and "Return of the King" to do better than "Fellowship". I don't know if the theatrical take will reach $300 million, but I wouldn't be surprised. Even if it just breaks even in the theaters, New Line wins big with all of the merchadising and potential video revenues.
-sk
I never bought the arguments that because /. was so intertwined with the open source movement that /code had to be open source too. Sure it would have been logically inconsistent, but then when are people ever logically consistent.
It would have been a different thing had Taco been talking up how open /. was and then never released anything. But even during all the whining that I remember, there was always an ancient tarball of the /code sitting around. Whenever I saw or read Taco talking about /. or /code, he always said "Yeah, it's open, but we haven't released a version for quite a while. I'll release it when its ready for public consumption." (or words to that effect) He was almost always apologetic that the source hadn't been updated. But you know what? It was his code and it was his right to do whatever the hell he wanted to do with it. How would you like it if everyone demanded to read your version of the Great American Novel even though the rough draft was only half done? (I know, I know...I'm an Amerio-centric pig...whatever.)
This board is not run by petty tyrants. It's run by good people who are sick and tired of being flamed for every minor mistake. Its success has come in spite of the FP'ers who add absolutely nothing to the discussion (although I admit some of the trolls are pretty funny.)
-sk