How does this work into the News for Nerds angle?
on
The End of the Oil Age
·
· Score: 1
Maybe I'm being naive here but is this really/. material? Or is this entire discussion -1 Offtopic?
I know, oil's bad and it can be attributed to pollution, terrorism, third-world poverty, the elevation of the rich, the desolation of the poor... and this deals with IT how?
I thought that the strongest new brands in a market with name recognition is to be the opposite of said brand. Pepsi's market share rose when it had it's "New Generation" campaign (implying that the old standard, Coca-cola, was the Old Generation). Avis car rental saw a gigantic increase with it's "We try Harder" [than the other companies]. Burger King versus McDonalds. Fox versus the Big Three. Heck, Linux versus Windows.
Consumers seem to think in simple dualities. There is the iconic brand... and then there is the one that is the anti-brand.
The problem for Mozilla? It is a product that is nigh identical to IE. Functionally they are the same (with only minor variations and where it differs siginficantly [that you need to do a third-party install] isn't a major selling point). To some extent it's the difference between a Chevy and Pontiac, not a Harley and a Honda.
Isn't one of the big problems with new strains of diseases is that folks don't finish their drug regimen thus increasing the probability of a drug-resistant version?
This could really help out. I think to a certain point saying "finish your meds" is the same as "say no to drugs". Yeah it's easy to say but difficult in practice. If you're bed-bound at home with a 102 fever, it isn't hard to remember to take your pill every 6 hours. But once you're better, back at work, and trying to make up for the sick leave? I think people severely overestimate their own internal timekeeping.
but I think his conclusion is wrong. The fact that the infrastructure is held together by a free time collective might not be the best (although I can't think of any solid reason as I haven't RTFA). But if he thinks it should go over straight to private industry to reign freely he's got a couple of screws loose. What infrastructure has never been regulated by the government?
There's a reason why: to provide uniform service to all citizens. The problem isn't in providing telephone service in NYC or the 'burbs, it's the service to BFN Montana and other rural locales. It's the same with electricity, roads, and water.
And I can't see how it's any different with connectivity. Now sure, the cable and phone companies control the last 50 feet to the wall socket, but that doesn't mean the central trunks should then just be handed off to some corp who's first decision is to cut all links crossing between the Rockies and Appalachians. Until such a guarantee can be offered by.gov I think we're better off with the longbeards anyway.
In the end I don't think it'll be too big of a deal anyway:.edu's and.govs (and their related.com's) will always have a need for connectivity. There will always be a large element of non-corporate influence. Worst case, Big State U steps in.
The more high-tech the US/NATO becomes the more primitive it's opponents. The Chinese are becoming more like their merchantile past, not the Giant Red Horde. What interest do they have in fighting the West when they're making so much money with them?
So that only leaves a handful of states (and the last one to try to do a Stand Up Fight against the US isn't in power anymore) and an odd dozen asymmetric foes (terrorist groups, drug cartels, etc).
Remember what the big lesson was after 9-11? Too much reliance on technology, lack of human elements. We are fighting a 4th Generational foe, the best counter being Maneuver Warfare: small fluid striking teams that disrupt the enemy's ability to wage a war. Right now there are three nations in space, a domain that it costs billions to be active in. Maybe in a 1000 years it'll be the primary battlefield. But that's like the Romans contemplating the threat of Nazi Germany.
Our software is skinnable, Which is usually turned off since it looks horrible and can eat cycles.
our email is filled with HTML, Which is ugly, a bandwidth and inbox hog, and completely unnecessary.
and our cases glow with colorful lights. Who is impressed by showcasing 500 dollars of parts? Heck, even the kid who owns the Honda Civic with the R-type sticker and whaletail put more money into it. And both are equally lame.
Problem is that aesthetics are usually misguided attempts at ergonomics that fail... horribly. Nothing like taking a bloated user-unfriendly piece of crap and making it a 16 million color bloated user-unfriendly piece of crap. I'd rather folks spend time making software useful instead of trying to polish a turd. This is usually why Apple's ergonomics wipe the floor with Microsoft's misguided attempts at flash.
Is there anything ICANN can do about this? Can they revoke Verisign's right to the com's and net's? Or could they just make a "suggestion" to some governmental body?
The Internet's the like Wild West and Verisign is setting itself up like a company town.
Yeah, its a nice pick and shows off a lot of skill (getting a little robot to balance on one leg from a standing position is no simple feat).
But how quickly does it do this? I didn't see any video and AFAIK these little robots move slow as if they were doing tai-chi. It's still very cool but any sort of real-world app (say playing ping-pong, making its way through city traffic, making me a cup of coffee) would require more responsive reflexes.
Maybe it's just an issue of processing power or mechanical ability (or it might require more elegant algs) but I'd like to see if they could speed these things up. If they ever plan to beat the human World Cup champs in 2025 (or whatever) they're going to need to somehow hold off those fastbreaks.
I personally think this is a swell move. Why? Because unlike the tactics of say the RIAA, the MPAA is going after a subset of folks who aren't their consumers but collegues. In a way they are changing a way the movie industry runs instead of trying to alter human nature.
Yeah yeah, the poor screeners and indie film makers. Well I guess all those independent films won't be winning Best Picture.
Outside of studio marketing folks, who cares who wins Oscars? People still go to movies, with or without the Academy's approval.
and isn't uncommon for any sort of brand to do this (Gateway had (still has) a deal with ER to have their machines prominently used). I really don't care either way. I just want movies to semi-accurately portray computers (although I didn't care for it, Matrix Reloaded did score marks for this) as compared to a lot of previous efforts (too many to mention). So if they do it from cmd.exe or sh, as long as it doesn't shake my ability to enjoy the movie, I'm fine with it.
I read the electronic versions of daily and weekly paper productions. Heck, I just moved so I can still read the paper back home and keep up to date on events 300 miles away. I can start reading before I go to work, continue there, and pick up where I left off in the evening. Lugging around four editions of news doesn't compare to that convenience. Of course the electronic versions only exist because of the advertising and subscriptions to the dead tree ones...
The other big area of e-convenience is in conference journals: expensive, clunky, hard to parse through. But luckily my company has subscriptions to most major IEEE and ACM publications. So I just open up our library frontend and tap away.
I still watch a lot of TV for news (Frontline and The News Hour) and read a bit (Esquire for more feature/editorial stuff, etc).
I guess the Internet has made interfacing with dead-tree material exponentially easier but has only cloned the sources.
they consider it a creative process rather than a logical one;
Are we supposed to assume that creative and logical are now mutually exclusive? I always thought they were complementary. I sure as heck wouldn't find computers interesting if it was all rote and mechanics.
Uh... this sounds like game theory and diffusion research to me. Sure, diffusion research is just the study on the adaptation of things in a population, but it seems that it can be extended into larger economic forces by adapting it atop of game theory (e.g. assume that each individual makes a specific choice via a game, then extrapolate it out over an entire population to determine how quickly choices are made across it).
I guess it's an umbrella then, packaging these ideas into a single field. Still, it doesn't seem to be any more than a reorg of current economic theories.
Re:Stephenson == very educated avantgardistic writ
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 5, Informative
He is consequently ignored by the 'big' literature critics - allways a clear sign of quality -
Um, actually Stephenson's writing has been written up (from Snow Crash through Cryptonomicon) in the New York Times Book Review so I don't know what "'big' literature critics" you're talking about.
Are you talking about academic literary critique? I know for a fact that several universities (those that aren't so Canon-bound; Penn State is one) read Stephenson at the graduate level. Likewise they read PKD and detective fiction. Sure, Martin Amis hasn't written a critique of Stephenson but I bet there is some published work being done.
I assume your problem is the fact that SF is being "marginalized" as genre fiction and not accepted into the Canon along side Ulysses, Old Man and the Sea and Canterbury Tales. Well the problem is that Literary Criticism is interested in 'literature' not 'reading'. A good story is a good story, yes, but that isn't what literary study is about: it is about understanding the way people write. Style, technique, editing. Gravity's Rainbow is considered big not because it reads "well" but because of its post-modern design (i.e. the entire story is parabolic, starting with a single thread, building to a central mass, and then, simplifying at the far tail... tracing the parabolic tragectory of the V-2 rocket at the beginning and the end). For all of Stephenson's positive traits, his writing doesn't expand the landscape of literature.
Literary criticism isn't about reading good books. It's about understanding the theory of writing itself.
Science Fiction Definitions
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First, let's make it clear that Quicksilver is not science fiction. It's historical fiction, occasionally about science, for people who like science fiction, i.e. geeks. It has math, optics, and vivisection, but no computers, no code, and no high-speed pizza delivery.
Personally this does sound like SF. Merriam-Webster describes SF as "fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component." Futuristic elements to the science is a common trait, but not a defining characteristic. So Quicksilver is pure SF just like William Gibson's Pattern Recognition is SF, even though its just dealing with meme-passing and culture creation. Heck, a caveman perfecting the flint spear with an atl-atl is SF. The interaction of man and science is the key, not the nature of the science itself.
it would be retroactive for FY2003? Ohio has an Internet Goods sales tax that you have to account for on your state taxes every 4/15. Of course one can massage the numbers ("gee... those three CPUs I bought online came by Fedex so...") but I'd be nice to not have to worry about it.
What makes you think I would buy clothing from/.;p And not like I want people to know how deep-rooted my addiction is.
*hits F5 repeatedly*
Re:Does this work for non native speakers?
on
Can You Raed Tihs?
·
· Score: 1
You may be right. There is a distinct difference on how someone who learns a language in their formative years (0-5) to those who learn it later (even 6-10). The brain's language parts become specialized to trained languages at that point. So someone who learns German and Swahili when they are 3 will speak both fluently while someone who learns Swahili at 8 and is just as fluent. There have been adaptive studies on ferret babies done where they switch the optical and aural nerves. Since it is during this formative stage, the ferrets' brains were able to adapt. The mammalian brain is an amazing thing.
Of course it probably has more to do with the 7+/-3 thing. The short-short term visual memory has some bandwidth to it. It isn't just one letter long but between 4 and 11. It then seems to go into a queue where it is filled in via learned expectation. There is this neat experiment where psycholinguistics removed syllables from the centers of words randomly in a sentence... and none of their subjects noticed.
So they were given: "Climbing Mt Ev___st was quite an accomplishment." And didn't hear the drop.
The brain has amazing filtering and predictive systems in it. The fact that you can listen to a conversation in a rowdy sports stadium is nigh miraculous.
But the advertising houses that are the major source of leaks (you know, the guys who take any movie and reduce it to "In a world... where a man..."). I remember Film Threat looking into this two years back.
The problem is that while only a certain controllable group inside a studio needs/has access to the complete movie, a whole slew of folks at the advertising companies have it. So while some guy getting paid 20k a year to chop up some shots from the film to put into a coming attraction, he throws it up on the web. Because these companies are peripheral to the project but integral to the process (somebody has to put together the DVD/30-second primetime slot/Newspaper adverts) and so it is tough for the MPAA to regulate.
I thought the industry only followed trends bubbled up to it (hence the need for cool hunters in areas ranging from music to shoes to fashion)? That whole defusion research on the adaptation of x into a population.
And people (on average) are very finicky about what they wear. A common misconception is that clothing is just a utilitarian thing: carry your keys, protect you from the elements, etc. In fact, clothing is social shorthand for broadcasting certain things about yourself to others and this functionality is the only use of clothing for most people. Ask any clique of 13 year old girls.
You have a nice sweater from A&F. Your group of friends approve. It says something. You add a damn PDA onto the sleeve, well, that says something too (and it's up to the wearer to decide if that message is important). Otherwise the button-down shirt would've been replaced with the velcro'd orange jumpsuit. And no matter how hard industry tries to push said jumpsuit, you won't see one in a school or club without a large smattering of irony.
Not to say that wearable tech won't make it (I think a sly Steve McQueen-esque turtleneck with a speaker cellphone built into it would be kinda fly [*ring*, puts fingers on neck, "Hello? Hey! Rodney..."]) but it won't be because some manager at American Eagle willed it into being.
There was this little movie a couple of years ago... Toy Story I think it was called... don't know how it did...;p
Yeah, this doesn't answer your true question... is it economical for an "adult" movie. Of course this just plays back into the Western cinema idea that animation is just for kids.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm being naive here but is this really /. material? Or is this entire discussion -1 Offtopic?
I know, oil's bad and it can be attributed to pollution, terrorism, third-world poverty, the elevation of the rich, the desolation of the poor... and this deals with IT how?
I thought that the strongest new brands in a market with name recognition is to be the opposite of said brand. Pepsi's market share rose when it had it's "New Generation" campaign (implying that the old standard, Coca-cola, was the Old Generation). Avis car rental saw a gigantic increase with it's "We try Harder" [than the other companies]. Burger King versus McDonalds. Fox versus the Big Three. Heck, Linux versus Windows.
Consumers seem to think in simple dualities. There is the iconic brand... and then there is the one that is the anti-brand.
The problem for Mozilla? It is a product that is nigh identical to IE. Functionally they are the same (with only minor variations and where it differs siginficantly [that you need to do a third-party install] isn't a major selling point). To some extent it's the difference between a Chevy and Pontiac, not a Harley and a Honda.
Isn't one of the big problems with new strains of diseases is that folks don't finish their drug regimen thus increasing the probability of a drug-resistant version?
This could really help out. I think to a certain point saying "finish your meds" is the same as "say no to drugs". Yeah it's easy to say but difficult in practice. If you're bed-bound at home with a 102 fever, it isn't hard to remember to take your pill every 6 hours. But once you're better, back at work, and trying to make up for the sick leave? I think people severely overestimate their own internal timekeeping.
Doesn't it also turn out that some sort of ARM chip is the most widely used CPU... by like several scale factors?
Of course I think this is all moot. It isn't like anyone is going to stick ITRON on their x86 and word process.
but I think his conclusion is wrong. The fact that the infrastructure is held together by a free time collective might not be the best (although I can't think of any solid reason as I haven't RTFA). But if he thinks it should go over straight to private industry to reign freely he's got a couple of screws loose. What infrastructure has never been regulated by the government?
.gov I think we're better off with the longbeards anyway.
.edu's and .govs (and their related .com's) will always have a need for connectivity. There will always be a large element of non-corporate influence. Worst case, Big State U steps in.
There's a reason why: to provide uniform service to all citizens. The problem isn't in providing telephone service in NYC or the 'burbs, it's the service to BFN Montana and other rural locales. It's the same with electricity, roads, and water.
And I can't see how it's any different with connectivity. Now sure, the cable and phone companies control the last 50 feet to the wall socket, but that doesn't mean the central trunks should then just be handed off to some corp who's first decision is to cut all links crossing between the Rockies and Appalachians. Until such a guarantee can be offered by
In the end I don't think it'll be too big of a deal anyway:
The more high-tech the US/NATO becomes the more primitive it's opponents. The Chinese are becoming more like their merchantile past, not the Giant Red Horde. What interest do they have in fighting the West when they're making so much money with them?
So that only leaves a handful of states (and the last one to try to do a Stand Up Fight against the US isn't in power anymore) and an odd dozen asymmetric foes (terrorist groups, drug cartels, etc).
Remember what the big lesson was after 9-11? Too much reliance on technology, lack of human elements. We are fighting a 4th Generational foe, the best counter being Maneuver Warfare: small fluid striking teams that disrupt the enemy's ability to wage a war. Right now there are three nations in space, a domain that it costs billions to be active in. Maybe in a 1000 years it'll be the primary battlefield. But that's like the Romans contemplating the threat of Nazi Germany.
Our software is skinnable,
Which is usually turned off since it looks horrible and can eat cycles.
our email is filled with HTML,
Which is ugly, a bandwidth and inbox hog, and completely unnecessary.
and our cases glow with colorful lights.
Who is impressed by showcasing 500 dollars of parts? Heck, even the kid who owns the Honda Civic with the R-type sticker and whaletail put more money into it. And both are equally lame.
Problem is that aesthetics are usually misguided attempts at ergonomics that fail... horribly. Nothing like taking a bloated user-unfriendly piece of crap and making it a 16 million color bloated user-unfriendly piece of crap. I'd rather folks spend time making software useful instead of trying to polish a turd. This is usually why Apple's ergonomics wipe the floor with Microsoft's misguided attempts at flash.
Is there anything ICANN can do about this? Can they revoke Verisign's right to the com's and net's? Or could they just make a "suggestion" to some governmental body?
The Internet's the like Wild West and Verisign is setting itself up like a company town.
Yeah, its a nice pick and shows off a lot of skill (getting a little robot to balance on one leg from a standing position is no simple feat).
But how quickly does it do this? I didn't see any video and AFAIK these little robots move slow as if they were doing tai-chi. It's still very cool but any sort of real-world app (say playing ping-pong, making its way through city traffic, making me a cup of coffee) would require more responsive reflexes.
Maybe it's just an issue of processing power or mechanical ability (or it might require more elegant algs) but I'd like to see if they could speed these things up. If they ever plan to beat the human World Cup champs in 2025 (or whatever) they're going to need to somehow hold off those fastbreaks.
I personally think this is a swell move. Why? Because unlike the tactics of say the RIAA, the MPAA is going after a subset of folks who aren't their consumers but collegues. In a way they are changing a way the movie industry runs instead of trying to alter human nature.
Yeah yeah, the poor screeners and indie film makers. Well I guess all those independent films won't be winning Best Picture.
Outside of studio marketing folks, who cares who wins Oscars? People still go to movies, with or without the Academy's approval.
Anybody else find the pronunciations of mebibyte et al reminicent of that old Bill Cosby skit where his mouth was shot with novicaine?
I'd have to say that this might never catch on because it sounds like you have a speech impediment.
and isn't uncommon for any sort of brand to do this (Gateway had (still has) a deal with ER to have their machines prominently used). I really don't care either way. I just want movies to semi-accurately portray computers (although I didn't care for it, Matrix Reloaded did score marks for this) as compared to a lot of previous efforts (too many to mention). So if they do it from cmd.exe or sh, as long as it doesn't shake my ability to enjoy the movie, I'm fine with it.
I read the electronic versions of daily and weekly paper productions. Heck, I just moved so I can still read the paper back home and keep up to date on events 300 miles away. I can start reading before I go to work, continue there, and pick up where I left off in the evening. Lugging around four editions of news doesn't compare to that convenience. Of course the electronic versions only exist because of the advertising and subscriptions to the dead tree ones...
The other big area of e-convenience is in conference journals: expensive, clunky, hard to parse through. But luckily my company has subscriptions to most major IEEE and ACM publications. So I just open up our library frontend and tap away.
I still watch a lot of TV for news (Frontline and The News Hour) and read a bit (Esquire for more feature/editorial stuff, etc).
I guess the Internet has made interfacing with dead-tree material exponentially easier but has only cloned the sources.
they consider it a creative process rather than a logical one;
Are we supposed to assume that creative and logical are now mutually exclusive? I always thought they were complementary. I sure as heck wouldn't find computers interesting if it was all rote and mechanics.
Weee neeeeed moooreee Aaaaayyeeees!
Uh... this sounds like game theory and diffusion research to me. Sure, diffusion research is just the study on the adaptation of things in a population, but it seems that it can be extended into larger economic forces by adapting it atop of game theory (e.g. assume that each individual makes a specific choice via a game, then extrapolate it out over an entire population to determine how quickly choices are made across it).
I guess it's an umbrella then, packaging these ideas into a single field. Still, it doesn't seem to be any more than a reorg of current economic theories.
He is consequently ignored by the 'big' literature critics - allways a clear sign of quality -
Um, actually Stephenson's writing has been written up (from Snow Crash through Cryptonomicon) in the New York Times Book Review so I don't know what "'big' literature critics" you're talking about.
Are you talking about academic literary critique? I know for a fact that several universities (those that aren't so Canon-bound; Penn State is one) read Stephenson at the graduate level. Likewise they read PKD and detective fiction. Sure, Martin Amis hasn't written a critique of Stephenson but I bet there is some published work being done.
I assume your problem is the fact that SF is being "marginalized" as genre fiction and not accepted into the Canon along side Ulysses, Old Man and the Sea and Canterbury Tales. Well the problem is that Literary Criticism is interested in 'literature' not 'reading'. A good story is a good story, yes, but that isn't what literary study is about: it is about understanding the way people write. Style, technique, editing. Gravity's Rainbow is considered big not because it reads "well" but because of its post-modern design (i.e. the entire story is parabolic, starting with a single thread, building to a central mass, and then, simplifying at the far tail... tracing the parabolic tragectory of the V-2 rocket at the beginning and the end). For all of Stephenson's positive traits, his writing doesn't expand the landscape of literature.
Literary criticism isn't about reading good books. It's about understanding the theory of writing itself.
First, let's make it clear that Quicksilver is not science fiction. It's historical fiction, occasionally about science, for people who like science fiction, i.e. geeks. It has math, optics, and vivisection, but no computers, no code, and no high-speed pizza delivery.
Personally this does sound like SF. Merriam-Webster describes SF as "fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component." Futuristic elements to the science is a common trait, but not a defining characteristic. So Quicksilver is pure SF just like William Gibson's Pattern Recognition is SF, even though its just dealing with meme-passing and culture creation. Heck, a caveman perfecting the flint spear with an atl-atl is SF. The interaction of man and science is the key, not the nature of the science itself.
if they would've completed the mission's objectives. The giant MISSION FAILED that popped over their heads should've been a give away.
*runs up to passanger side door of police cruiser and tries to open door; runs to drivers side and drives away*
it would be retroactive for FY2003? Ohio has an Internet Goods sales tax that you have to account for on your state taxes every 4/15. Of course one can massage the numbers ("gee... those three CPUs I bought online came by Fedex so...") but I'd be nice to not have to worry about it.
Or would this affect state taxation at all?
What makes you think I would buy clothing from /. ;p And not like I want people to know how deep-rooted my addiction is.
*hits F5 repeatedly*
You may be right. There is a distinct difference on how someone who learns a language in their formative years (0-5) to those who learn it later (even 6-10). The brain's language parts become specialized to trained languages at that point. So someone who learns German and Swahili when they are 3 will speak both fluently while someone who learns Swahili at 8 and is just as fluent. There have been adaptive studies on ferret babies done where they switch the optical and aural nerves. Since it is during this formative stage, the ferrets' brains were able to adapt. The mammalian brain is an amazing thing.
Of course it probably has more to do with the 7+/-3 thing. The short-short term visual memory has some bandwidth to it. It isn't just one letter long but between 4 and 11. It then seems to go into a queue where it is filled in via learned expectation. There is this neat experiment where psycholinguistics removed syllables from the centers of words randomly in a sentence... and none of their subjects noticed.
So they were given: "Climbing Mt Ev___st was quite an accomplishment." And didn't hear the drop.
The brain has amazing filtering and predictive systems in it. The fact that you can listen to a conversation in a rowdy sports stadium is nigh miraculous.
But the advertising houses that are the major source of leaks (you know, the guys who take any movie and reduce it to "In a world... where a man..."). I remember Film Threat looking into this two years back.
The problem is that while only a certain controllable group inside a studio needs/has access to the complete movie, a whole slew of folks at the advertising companies have it. So while some guy getting paid 20k a year to chop up some shots from the film to put into a coming attraction, he throws it up on the web. Because these companies are peripheral to the project but integral to the process (somebody has to put together the DVD/30-second primetime slot/Newspaper adverts) and so it is tough for the MPAA to regulate.
I thought the industry only followed trends bubbled up to it (hence the need for cool hunters in areas ranging from music to shoes to fashion)? That whole defusion research on the adaptation of x into a population.
And people (on average) are very finicky about what they wear. A common misconception is that clothing is just a utilitarian thing: carry your keys, protect you from the elements, etc. In fact, clothing is social shorthand for broadcasting certain things about yourself to others and this functionality is the only use of clothing for most people. Ask any clique of 13 year old girls.
You have a nice sweater from A&F. Your group of friends approve. It says something. You add a damn PDA onto the sleeve, well, that says something too (and it's up to the wearer to decide if that message is important). Otherwise the button-down shirt would've been replaced with the velcro'd orange jumpsuit. And no matter how hard industry tries to push said jumpsuit, you won't see one in a school or club without a large smattering of irony.
Not to say that wearable tech won't make it (I think a sly Steve McQueen-esque turtleneck with a speaker cellphone built into it would be kinda fly [*ring*, puts fingers on neck, "Hello? Hey! Rodney..."]) but it won't be because some manager at American Eagle willed it into being.
Would a completely CG movie be economical?
;p
There was this little movie a couple of years ago... Toy Story I think it was called... don't know how it did...
Yeah, this doesn't answer your true question... is it economical for an "adult" movie. Of course this just plays back into the Western cinema idea that animation is just for kids.