On the other hand, my opinion about the role which the actor plays in shaping the character comes from watching OTHER actors figure out over the course of rehearsals why their character would deliver the lines he delivers.
But they are the director's/writer's lines, the lines define "who" the character is. The actor is trying to figure out "why" so they can better perform and better bring the character to life for the audience. To appear to be the character rather than some person repeating lines written by someone else. Rarely does the actor's internal "why" finds its way back into the script.
In particular, this came about in a performance where the writer described the characters he created, which bore no resemblance to the characters in the performance. The other thing which influences that is the plays I have been in where one of the actors changed.
So the writer has a vision that goes beyond the line, the writer is deciding "who" the character is.
Good performance or bad, good internal "why's" or not, it is Shakespeare that defines who Julius Ceasar "is" not the actor. The actor's brilliance is in the communication of the vision, not so much in the creation of the vision.
Honest question from someone who only knows the basics: how do you trade bitcoins without miners around? I thought the transactions had to be embedded in the blockchain.
You use a proof of ownership mining/minting scheme like Nxt rather than the current proof of work mining/minting scheme. In proof of ownership it is the owners of coins who make their computer a node in the network for the processing of transactions which maintain the blockchain.
Switching to proof of ownership is something bitcoin could do. Especially now that coins are widely distributed. The big problem with proof of ownership is the initial distribution of coins, bitcoin is beyond that.
Of course miners will oppose any such switch. But if bitcoin wishes to survive in the long term and not be centrally controlled by mining hardware manufacturers (China) operating their own farms next to dirt cheap hydroelectricity (China), and return power to users (owners of coins), and truly be peer-to-peer (owners participate as a node in mining/minting network), then proof of ownership is one of very few options.
Bitcoin won't be viable for shit until you can process a few million per second.
Visa averages around 2k tps (transactions per second)
Visa is not supporting a speculative investment scheme. Bitcoin is more analogous to high frequency wall street trading, not actual consumer transactions. Bitcoin is *currently* primarily a speculative investment scheme.
In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production.
What makes you think this has changed? The price has roughly doubled with a reward halving upcoming.
Thus if bitcoin every did go mainstream than the electrical costs to mint such bitcoins would also similarly skyrocket.
No, bitcoin could switch from a proof of work system to a proof of ownership system. The problem with the later is the initial distribution of coins, but that is a problem for a new coin not an established coin that is already widely distributed.
Its a solved problem, the mining/minting algorithm can be based on proof of ownership not proof of work. See Nxt for example. The problem is in distributing the ownership initially after block chain genesis.
The price already did increased, even x3 in last ~month, possibly that was in anticipation of this effect
Exactly, there is no fight for survival since the price more than doubled. Any miner that survived during the time bitcoin spent in the mid 200's recently is quite happy even with the split. If anything miners that had shut down are now finding it profitable to turn their hardware back on, again even factoring in the split. With current prices and a split we are equivalent to the low 300's. Mid 200's to low 300's (equivalent) is a win for miners.
Sure, a handful of very old mining hardware might be turned back on for now, hardware that needs 500+, they're just going for a brief final run until the split but they haven't really been players for over a year.
Shatner and Nimoy were slightly more established than Takei at the time. And as you describe they brought it to the executive producer who actually made the call, the decision. You don't get to hear about the hundreds of other actor suggestions that get rejected by producers and writer. Sure actor's contribute to "who" a character is at times but their contributions are minor overall, they mostly bring the character to life for the audience. The neck pinch an exception not the rule.
I would argue that in most of those Westerns there were only a handful of hero archetypes. And with the studio system of the day they knew well in advance which actor would be assigned to a role so writers often wrote the character to the assigned actor's strengths. In some cases you are describing actors who got type cast to a certain type of role.
As far as playing a part to perfection, of course, actors bring the character to life. But it is the writers and directors who decided on the dialogue, the actions, the responses... rarely is anything highly meaningful an actor improvisation. And for an unknown and unproven actor like Takei in the original series, a series that had many highly acclaimed sci fi writers, the actor would have little influence on "who" the character is. Defining and bring a character to life are two very different things.
Once you are a highly successful actor like Carey and can step into producer and other roles beyond actor (i.e. start putting your money into the project) yes you can have more influence. But that is the exception not the rule. The original Star Trek had some exceptional writers and Takei was an unknown and unproven actor. Sulu was not his vision, he did not decide who Sulu "was", he brought the character to life, maybe there was some minor suggestions or improvisations. But that rarely "defines" a character, it brings him to life, makes him more believable.
And yet everyone knows that Sean Connery *is* James Bond. Roger, Timothy, Pierce, and Daniel all did a fine job, and each contributed IMO a valid interpretation, but Sean set the standard by which they were all judged.
Being first has its benefits. And being "known" has a lot to do with a recognizable face. Compare the fight scenes in a Connery vs a Moore film. I grew up when Moore was in the box office and he was the more familiar face of Bond until I got a little older and saw the Connery films. It was the writing and directing that were day and night. Some fight that Connery had in a train car with a Russian agent was visually a highly improvised and more realistic brawl. It made the character far more real, and so the face of Connery replaced Moore in my mind as the "real" Bond.
Connery is a great actor but if he was given the crap Moore was given he would be forgotten too. Need I mention the Highlander sequels?
Character defining actor improvisation is the exception not the rule. And bringing the vision to life is something a talented actor can do, and that includes minor improvisations, but the overall vision of the character is not actor defined except in the rarest of flukes.
You confuse adding nuance and bringing the vision to life with who creates the vision. In this particular example the directors and writers were established, the actor an unknown. The actor gave us the face we recognize. The directors and writers gave us **who** Sulu was in the original series.
You are confusing actors with writers. Writers decide who a character is and what they are about. Actors implement the writer's vision, actors communicate that vision through their performance.
What true story? Its an alternate universe. If any fan base could be assumed to accept and understand that in parallel universes things can be a "little" different you would think it would be the Star Trek fan base.
Make all the comments you want about political correctness, pandering, etc... but don't be so foolish to talk about Star Trek "canon orthodoxy". This sort of "difference" is entirely within "canon".
Or maybe you meant that a unmarked document can still be classified information, and some of it is so obviously classified that anybody handling it *should* have known it was classified (and thus if they distributed it they were willfully distributing classified information)... in which case I'll agree with that.
Yes, I'm referring to the recipient's perspective only. A lack of a mark does not make something declassified. Some content is inherently classified, mis-marking does not change that. People handling classified info are specifically trained on this point.
According to news reports: 7 of these e-mails pertained to CIA Drone strikes news which we insist on classifying even though they have been reported by news paper and news wires. The 8th one pertains to a visit from the new Malawi President. Matters related to foreign head of states are always classified as a rule.
YAWN.
You're sleepy. I suppose that's why you didn't look into the other 102 classified emails.
""In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received." http://www.politifact.com/trut...
>Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Sorry, this is wrong. Markings are *always* required. You have to mark shit or it's assumed to be of the highest level the facility you're in is capable of producing.
You prove my point. I am not saying markings are optional for the person creating the document. I am saying marking are not required for the person receiving the document, if the creator failed to mark then certain documents are still classified merely by the nature of their content. That the lack of a mark does not make a document unclassified.
right... because people just a a tingly spidey-sense when an email has classified information in it
No spidey sense required, people who handle classified info are trained in what info is classified by default, regardless of markings. Basically a marking must be there to say it is declassified, not that it is classified. For example references to undercover CIA operatives, even indirect references, which is one of the things found to have been passing through Clinton's server.
That is why they did not attempt to prosecute,...
No, the FBI director specified that there was no clear intent, merely incompetence. Intent is a necessary element of a crime. That is why he offered as an example, firing people and revoking their security clearance, when they display such incompetence on the job.
And for the 8 pieces that she received that were actually marked... then I say BRAVO, for only making a mistake 8 times out of 30,000 emails.
Not true. He stated 8 had classification markings, all of which contained paragraphs marked with (c) designating them as confidential.
"In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains." http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Let me get this straight. An email server that had nothing critical on it...
Nope, wrong, the FBI director testified that there were over 100 emails that were classified at the time they arrived on the server. Hillary's claim that all the controversial emails were later reclassified after arrival was proven false.
And these 100+ only represent what was recoverable. Tens of thousands of emails were not recoverable. And we also know from the FBI investigation that Hillary's claim that these emails were all personal was also proven false. Several of these not handed over by Hillary and deleted from her server were also classified, they were found through other recipients government email accounts.
It's a surprise because Google Maps isn't always running on our phones.
Location services is core OS functionality, Maps is just one user of that functionality/api. Another user of that functionality is targeted advertising, how could this be at all surprising given that its from Google?
Apple is also a nice way to get a clean MS Windows environment via Boot Camp. Its an end user installation of Windows, like a build-your-own-PC, so its a fairly clean install.
I've been building my own PCs from parts since 386 days. I've only had a small fraction of the Windows problems others complain about. Even good Linux compatibility. OK, it may help that the "No" and "Cancel" buttons are my friends, especially when someone is generously offering to install something for me. And I look out for those sneaky checkboxes on the installers of products I do want, sneaky checkboxes that enable the installation of some 3rd party crapware. On second thought some of the crapware is not 3rd party, I also do custom installs not default installs to catch that.
So yeah, 3rd party bundling is the source of much trouble, whether at the PC factory or in a software installer.
In the 1960s rockets landing on their tail and being reused was science fiction, unproven, and its associated costs unknown. 50 years later its doable and its costs known and its the less expensive tech.
Bezos specified he's talking about a hundred or more years in the future. In fifty years we went from aircraft that were little more than wooden/canvas structures with engines to landing on the moon. We are already landing on asteroids, already doing long range commercial analysis,... We already know how to mine the water and do quite useful stuff with it (drinking, breathing O2, H2+O2 for fuel,...). Other simple and available organic compounds also have quite well known processes and uses.
The missing pieces are largely matters of engineering not scientific understanding, and the engineering often not far removed from today's capabilities. And the economics of it all is largely a matter of scale. Apollo 11 bringing back a bag of rocks is like building Intel's i7 CPU fab and only building 100 CPUs. Those CPUs are awfully damn expensive. Now start doing things at scale and quantity as Bezos is talking about. And also as Bezos discusses, be sure to factor in the external costs of that earth bound manufacturing, particular health and environmental costs when your make comparisons, not simply the cost of the goods sold.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, my opinion about the role which the actor plays in shaping the character comes from watching OTHER actors figure out over the course of rehearsals why their character would deliver the lines he delivers.
But they are the director's/writer's lines, the lines define "who" the character is. The actor is trying to figure out "why" so they can better perform and better bring the character to life for the audience. To appear to be the character rather than some person repeating lines written by someone else. Rarely does the actor's internal "why" finds its way back into the script.
In particular, this came about in a performance where the writer described the characters he created, which bore no resemblance to the characters in the performance. The other thing which influences that is the plays I have been in where one of the actors changed.
So the writer has a vision that goes beyond the line, the writer is deciding "who" the character is.
Good performance or bad, good internal "why's" or not, it is Shakespeare that defines who Julius Ceasar "is" not the actor. The actor's brilliance is in the communication of the vision, not so much in the creation of the vision.
Honest question from someone who only knows the basics: how do you trade bitcoins without miners around? I thought the transactions had to be embedded in the blockchain.
You use a proof of ownership mining/minting scheme like Nxt rather than the current proof of work mining/minting scheme. In proof of ownership it is the owners of coins who make their computer a node in the network for the processing of transactions which maintain the blockchain.
Switching to proof of ownership is something bitcoin could do. Especially now that coins are widely distributed. The big problem with proof of ownership is the initial distribution of coins, bitcoin is beyond that.
Of course miners will oppose any such switch. But if bitcoin wishes to survive in the long term and not be centrally controlled by mining hardware manufacturers (China) operating their own farms next to dirt cheap hydroelectricity (China), and return power to users (owners of coins), and truly be peer-to-peer (owners participate as a node in mining/minting network), then proof of ownership is one of very few options.
Bitcoin won't be viable for shit until you can process a few million per second.
Visa averages around 2k tps (transactions per second)
Visa is not supporting a speculative investment scheme. Bitcoin is more analogous to high frequency wall street trading, not actual consumer transactions. Bitcoin is *currently* primarily a speculative investment scheme.
In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production.
What makes you think this has changed? The price has roughly doubled with a reward halving upcoming.
Thus if bitcoin every did go mainstream than the electrical costs to mint such bitcoins would also similarly skyrocket .
No, bitcoin could switch from a proof of work system to a proof of ownership system. The problem with the later is the initial distribution of coins, but that is a problem for a new coin not an established coin that is already widely distributed.
Everything takes energy.
Its a solved problem, the mining/minting algorithm can be based on proof of ownership not proof of work. See Nxt for example. The problem is in distributing the ownership initially after block chain genesis.
The price already did increased, even x3 in last ~month, possibly that was in anticipation of this effect
Exactly, there is no fight for survival since the price more than doubled. Any miner that survived during the time bitcoin spent in the mid 200's recently is quite happy even with the split. If anything miners that had shut down are now finding it profitable to turn their hardware back on, again even factoring in the split. With current prices and a split we are equivalent to the low 300's. Mid 200's to low 300's (equivalent) is a win for miners.
Sure, a handful of very old mining hardware might be turned back on for now, hardware that needs 500+, they're just going for a brief final run until the split but they haven't really been players for over a year.
Shatner and Nimoy were slightly more established than Takei at the time. And as you describe they brought it to the executive producer who actually made the call, the decision. You don't get to hear about the hundreds of other actor suggestions that get rejected by producers and writer. Sure actor's contribute to "who" a character is at times but their contributions are minor overall, they mostly bring the character to life for the audience. The neck pinch an exception not the rule.
I would argue that in most of those Westerns there were only a handful of hero archetypes. And with the studio system of the day they knew well in advance which actor would be assigned to a role so writers often wrote the character to the assigned actor's strengths. In some cases you are describing actors who got type cast to a certain type of role.
... rarely is anything highly meaningful an actor improvisation. And for an unknown and unproven actor like Takei in the original series, a series that had many highly acclaimed sci fi writers, the actor would have little influence on "who" the character is. Defining and bring a character to life are two very different things.
As far as playing a part to perfection, of course, actors bring the character to life. But it is the writers and directors who decided on the dialogue, the actions, the responses
Once you are a highly successful actor like Carey and can step into producer and other roles beyond actor (i.e. start putting your money into the project) yes you can have more influence. But that is the exception not the rule. The original Star Trek had some exceptional writers and Takei was an unknown and unproven actor. Sulu was not his vision, he did not decide who Sulu "was", he brought the character to life, maybe there was some minor suggestions or improvisations. But that rarely "defines" a character, it brings him to life, makes him more believable.
And yet everyone knows that Sean Connery *is* James Bond. Roger, Timothy, Pierce, and Daniel all did a fine job, and each contributed IMO a valid interpretation, but Sean set the standard by which they were all judged.
Being first has its benefits. And being "known" has a lot to do with a recognizable face. Compare the fight scenes in a Connery vs a Moore film. I grew up when Moore was in the box office and he was the more familiar face of Bond until I got a little older and saw the Connery films. It was the writing and directing that were day and night. Some fight that Connery had in a train car with a Russian agent was visually a highly improvised and more realistic brawl. It made the character far more real, and so the face of Connery replaced Moore in my mind as the "real" Bond.
Connery is a great actor but if he was given the crap Moore was given he would be forgotten too. Need I mention the Highlander sequels?
Character defining actor improvisation is the exception not the rule. And bringing the vision to life is something a talented actor can do, and that includes minor improvisations, but the overall vision of the character is not actor defined except in the rarest of flukes.
You confuse adding nuance and bringing the vision to life with who creates the vision. In this particular example the directors and writers were established, the actor an unknown. The actor gave us the face we recognize. The directors and writers gave us **who** Sulu was in the original series.
You are confusing actors with writers. Writers decide who a character is and what they are about. Actors implement the writer's vision, actors communicate that vision through their performance.
Stick true to the story ...
What true story? Its an alternate universe. If any fan base could be assumed to accept and understand that in parallel universes things can be a "little" different you would think it would be the Star Trek fan base.
... but don't be so foolish to talk about Star Trek "canon orthodoxy". This sort of "difference" is entirely within "canon".
Make all the comments you want about political correctness, pandering, etc
Or maybe you meant that a unmarked document can still be classified information, and some of it is so obviously classified that anybody handling it *should* have known it was classified (and thus if they distributed it they were willfully distributing classified information)... in which case I'll agree with that.
Yes, I'm referring to the recipient's perspective only. A lack of a mark does not make something declassified. Some content is inherently classified, mis-marking does not change that. People handling classified info are specifically trained on this point.
According to news reports: 7 of these e-mails pertained to CIA Drone strikes news which we insist on classifying even though they have been reported by news paper and news wires. The 8th one pertains to a visit from the new Malawi President. Matters related to foreign head of states are always classified as a rule. YAWN.
You're sleepy. I suppose that's why you didn't look into the other 102 classified emails.
""In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received."
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
>Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Sorry, this is wrong. Markings are *always* required. You have to mark shit or it's assumed to be of the highest level the facility you're in is capable of producing.
You prove my point. I am not saying markings are optional for the person creating the document. I am saying marking are not required for the person receiving the document, if the creator failed to mark then certain documents are still classified merely by the nature of their content. That the lack of a mark does not make a document unclassified.
right... because people just a a tingly spidey-sense when an email has classified information in it
No spidey sense required, people who handle classified info are trained in what info is classified by default, regardless of markings. Basically a marking must be there to say it is declassified, not that it is classified. For example references to undercover CIA operatives, even indirect references, which is one of the things found to have been passing through Clinton's server.
That is why they did not attempt to prosecute, ...
No, the FBI director specified that there was no clear intent, merely incompetence. Intent is a necessary element of a crime. That is why he offered as an example, firing people and revoking their security clearance, when they display such incompetence on the job.
And for the 8 pieces that she received that were actually marked... then I say BRAVO, for only making a mistake 8 times out of 30,000 emails.
No, its 8 out of 110.
Not true. He stated 8 had classification markings, all of which contained paragraphs marked with (c) designating them as confidential.
"In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains."
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Let me get this straight. An email server that had nothing critical on it ...
Nope, wrong, the FBI director testified that there were over 100 emails that were classified at the time they arrived on the server. Hillary's claim that all the controversial emails were later reclassified after arrival was proven false.
And these 100+ only represent what was recoverable. Tens of thousands of emails were not recoverable. And we also know from the FBI investigation that Hillary's claim that these emails were all personal was also proven false. Several of these not handed over by Hillary and deleted from her server were also classified, they were found through other recipients government email accounts.
It's a surprise because Google Maps isn't always running on our phones.
Location services is core OS functionality, Maps is just one user of that functionality/api. Another user of that functionality is targeted advertising, how could this be at all surprising given that its from Google?
Apple is also a nice way to get a clean MS Windows environment via Boot Camp. Its an end user installation of Windows, like a build-your-own-PC, so its a fairly clean install.
I've been building my own PCs from parts since 386 days. I've only had a small fraction of the Windows problems others complain about. Even good Linux compatibility. OK, it may help that the "No" and "Cancel" buttons are my friends, especially when someone is generously offering to install something for me. And I look out for those sneaky checkboxes on the installers of products I do want, sneaky checkboxes that enable the installation of some 3rd party crapware. On second thought some of the crapware is not 3rd party, I also do custom installs not default installs to catch that.
So yeah, 3rd party bundling is the source of much trouble, whether at the PC factory or in a software installer.
In the 1960s rockets landing on their tail and being reused was science fiction, unproven, and its associated costs unknown. 50 years later its doable and its costs known and its the less expensive tech.
... We already know how to mine the water and do quite useful stuff with it (drinking, breathing O2, H2+O2 for fuel, ...). Other simple and available organic compounds also have quite well known processes and uses.
Bezos specified he's talking about a hundred or more years in the future. In fifty years we went from aircraft that were little more than wooden/canvas structures with engines to landing on the moon. We are already landing on asteroids, already doing long range commercial analysis,
The missing pieces are largely matters of engineering not scientific understanding, and the engineering often not far removed from today's capabilities. And the economics of it all is largely a matter of scale. Apollo 11 bringing back a bag of rocks is like building Intel's i7 CPU fab and only building 100 CPUs. Those CPUs are awfully damn expensive. Now start doing things at scale and quantity as Bezos is talking about. And also as Bezos discusses, be sure to factor in the external costs of that earth bound manufacturing, particular health and environmental costs when your make comparisons, not simply the cost of the goods sold.
First Google dropped the "do no evil" motto years ago publicly.
Any partnerships with state-owned (government) enterprises at the time? :-)
If they suspected him first and got a warrant, then, yeah, it's OK.
Yeah, what the police are doing is fine. Proper warrant in a proper context.
Its what Google is doing that I question, that Google has such data in the first place.