I suspect that the hypothetical Roger Ebert you have instantiated on which to base your description is much more like yourself than the real Roger Ebert in terms of critical thinking. The hypothetical Roger Ebert takes a different position than you do in the argument you're having with yourself, but he still analyzes in a way similar to the way in which you analyze, and is attempting to "win" the argument in a manner similar to what you're still doing. If you were thinking like the real Roger Ebert, you wouldn't be dismissive of the comparison between GH4 and Beatles:RockBand, and you wouldn't ask about the difference...at least not after coming to an appreciation of one of two games. As far as "why wasn't Guitar Hero art" goes, I don't know that Ebert would have maintained that stance after he had been moved revise his opinion by his experience with Beatles Rock Band.
The idea that he considered for even a moment trying to make an argument that music is not art is preposterous.
I said he probably didn't think he could get away with the argument; I didn't specify how long it took him to conclude that, or by what route. The game he conceded on is essentially performance of music.
This was a critical discussion to him. This was not an argument between Roger Ebert and video game fans where one side was right/winner and the other side was wrong/loser. When you sum up the game as "essentially performance of music", I get the distinct impression that Roger Ebert had a deeper appreciation of "The Beatles: Rock Band" than you do.
It did a better job showing a calculating dark batman
No, the Dark Knight series showed a calculating dark batman. Batman vs. Superman show's Frank Miller's "Punisher with a cape" Batman. I can accept that it's a different take on the character, but my dad was totally put off the movie by this.
It's funny to me that when you use the phrase "The Dark Knight Series", you're not talking about Frank Miller's comics. Get off my lawn.
I disagree. I think it sounds like he was a strong enough thinker to consider the possibility that he's been wrong about something he's said in the past. The idea that he considered for even a moment trying to make an argument that music is not art is preposterous. Music is the prime example of art in critical thought.
Ebert also said video games are not an expressive media and only idiots consume them.
He did maintain that stance for a while, but "The Beatles: Rock Band" convinced him to lighten up on this. He modified it to something like "under certain circumstances, video games can be art"....or something like that. Can someone find this reference? I think I read it in an old EGM or something.
Right on, VernonNamitz. Hollywood's vanity is showing more and more plainly. The feedback cycle from the audience is now open, and the Hollywood babies who have spent 100 years in a protected bubble can't take it. Nobody to make friends with, nobody to bribe to change your Rotten Tomatoes score....whatever will you do? Hopefully, Ratner will be a man without a company soon. Hey Ratner, how about a reality show about your slide into anonymity? I might watch that, but it's a safe bet I won't be watching your "dark" Superman Batman crap.
If they put all of AI development under one department, how are they going to fool the rest of the organization into believing that the artificial intelligence exists, and isn't just a rehash of collision detection, route calculation, and remote control schemes used to move cars around?
I had no idea that "Uber Nowhere" existed, much less that they were so close to solving the problem of autonomous driving. It makes sense that its self-driving cars need a lot of human help, too, because humans know a lot about going nowhere.
I'm sure there are many exceptions amongst the Slashdot user base, but hardcore critical thinkers aside, people don't use anything but "5 Stars" and "1 Star" anyway. They love it or they hate it. This change will make the experience more honest...now we KNOW it's just a bunch of crap. I'll be much less tempted to believe the recommendations now. That said...the recommendations Netflix used to give me, using the algorithm they used back in 2005...those were uncannily accurate.
This is a company that booby traps its games with phone home features to check and be sure the Mouse still says it's okay to play promotional movie games on your phone. One day, your kid can play the pointy clicky phone game, the next day, screw you kid, won't launch ever again. They seem to love taking things away, just because they can. Concerned parents should teach kids young that Disney, like other corporations, cannot be trusted.
Good comment. This is also true of "I, Robot", which was based on a non-Asimov novel called "Hardwired" or similar. However, why do all movie threads on slashdot go to this topic?
Hey, I've seen the Matrix! Let's talk about Heinlein. Also, wouldn't it be awesome if blah blah blah? Why do all movie discussions on slashdot forums go like this? Also it's important that I post this so it appears as high as possible in the conversation at the time of my posting, regardless of relevance or whether this story is even news. Whew! Now I can get on with my day.
NOW you perceive the film industry has run out of ideas? In 2017? More likely, those who voted this to the front page just happen to be in the 35 to 40 year old zone where the banality of popular entertainment starts to become intuitively obvious even to those with no critical thinking skills. Not news. Status quo.
Is the premise that the C-levels at AMD are going to read/. to discover whether open source security code is safer than closed source security code? Some of us bill by the hour for regurgitating established factual non-opinion-based security information. Hell, some of us are even salaried to do it. What's in it for us?
No...that's what they are saying they are using as criteria. Knowing where to look something up and understanding it are different things. I don't believe Consumer Reports will be hiring any real security experts to conduct their reviews. They'll do the same thing they've always done--best effort approach using reviewers who know how to meet deadlines for writing review text. If you're an expert in a field, you don't take advice from Consumer Reports. Just look at their reviews for product areas in which you are personally expert, and you will see what I mean. It's nice that they've added a column to their matrices about "Security", but for me, a dot in that column is meaningless.
This is true. Facebookers are lonely. That's why I spend my quality time with my real friends: the Slashdot forum community. The warmth, understanding, and charitable attitudes I find on Slashdot help me make it through the day, and always lead me to an accurate assessment of the tech news.
Oh mighty prophet coward, why not post as self so I can check back with you on 2/23/2020 and see how hard it is to find a TV that can display 3D with syncronized glasses? High-end...that's funny. The thing I don't get is why so many people are invested in this concept of calling a perfectly-working feature "dead". I don't get what you think success looks like.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that the hypothetical Roger Ebert you have instantiated on which to base your description is much more like yourself than the real Roger Ebert in terms of critical thinking. The hypothetical Roger Ebert takes a different position than you do in the argument you're having with yourself, but he still analyzes in a way similar to the way in which you analyze, and is attempting to "win" the argument in a manner similar to what you're still doing. If you were thinking like the real Roger Ebert, you wouldn't be dismissive of the comparison between GH4 and Beatles:RockBand, and you wouldn't ask about the difference...at least not after coming to an appreciation of one of two games. As far as "why wasn't Guitar Hero art" goes, I don't know that Ebert would have maintained that stance after he had been moved revise his opinion by his experience with Beatles Rock Band.
The idea that he considered for even a moment trying to make an argument that music is not art is preposterous.
I said he probably didn't think he could get away with the argument; I didn't specify how long it took him to conclude that, or by what route. The game he conceded on is essentially performance of music.
This was a critical discussion to him. This was not an argument between Roger Ebert and video game fans where one side was right/winner and the other side was wrong/loser. When you sum up the game as "essentially performance of music", I get the distinct impression that Roger Ebert had a deeper appreciation of "The Beatles: Rock Band" than you do.
It did a better job showing a calculating dark batman
No, the Dark Knight series showed a calculating dark batman. Batman vs. Superman show's Frank Miller's "Punisher with a cape" Batman. I can accept that it's a different take on the character, but my dad was totally put off the movie by this.
It's funny to me that when you use the phrase "The Dark Knight Series", you're not talking about Frank Miller's comics. Get off my lawn.
Ambassador, what's a "regular people" and why is it different from a "critic"?
I disagree. I think it sounds like he was a strong enough thinker to consider the possibility that he's been wrong about something he's said in the past. The idea that he considered for even a moment trying to make an argument that music is not art is preposterous. Music is the prime example of art in critical thought.
Ebert also said video games are not an expressive media and only idiots consume them.
He did maintain that stance for a while, but "The Beatles: Rock Band" convinced him to lighten up on this. He modified it to something like "under certain circumstances, video games can be art"....or something like that. Can someone find this reference? I think I read it in an old EGM or something.
Right on, VernonNamitz. Hollywood's vanity is showing more and more plainly. The feedback cycle from the audience is now open, and the Hollywood babies who have spent 100 years in a protected bubble can't take it. Nobody to make friends with, nobody to bribe to change your Rotten Tomatoes score....whatever will you do? Hopefully, Ratner will be a man without a company soon. Hey Ratner, how about a reality show about your slide into anonymity? I might watch that, but it's a safe bet I won't be watching your "dark" Superman Batman crap.
If they put all of AI development under one department, how are they going to fool the rest of the organization into believing that the artificial intelligence exists, and isn't just a rehash of collision detection, route calculation, and remote control schemes used to move cars around?
Hey, we're all going to die, anyway, so why bother with breathing and eating?
I had no idea that "Uber Nowhere" existed, much less that they were so close to solving the problem of autonomous driving. It makes sense that its self-driving cars need a lot of human help, too, because humans know a lot about going nowhere.
I'm sure there are many exceptions amongst the Slashdot user base, but hardcore critical thinkers aside, people don't use anything but "5 Stars" and "1 Star" anyway. They love it or they hate it. This change will make the experience more honest...now we KNOW it's just a bunch of crap. I'll be much less tempted to believe the recommendations now. That said...the recommendations Netflix used to give me, using the algorithm they used back in 2005...those were uncannily accurate.
EXTERMINATE
This is a company that booby traps its games with phone home features to check and be sure the Mouse still says it's okay to play promotional movie games on your phone. One day, your kid can play the pointy clicky phone game, the next day, screw you kid, won't launch ever again. They seem to love taking things away, just because they can. Concerned parents should teach kids young that Disney, like other corporations, cannot be trusted.
Battleship? Really?
Yeah, I had the same reaction. On the other end of the spectrum, you've got the mashup movies like "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter".
I want to know more about this spectrum. What's in the middle?
Good comment. This is also true of "I, Robot", which was based on a non-Asimov novel called "Hardwired" or similar. However, why do all movie threads on slashdot go to this topic?
Hey, I've seen the Matrix! Let's talk about Heinlein. Also, wouldn't it be awesome if blah blah blah? Why do all movie discussions on slashdot forums go like this? Also it's important that I post this so it appears as high as possible in the conversation at the time of my posting, regardless of relevance or whether this story is even news. Whew! Now I can get on with my day.
NOW you perceive the film industry has run out of ideas? In 2017? More likely, those who voted this to the front page just happen to be in the 35 to 40 year old zone where the banality of popular entertainment starts to become intuitively obvious even to those with no critical thinking skills. Not news. Status quo.
Exactly as you said in comments here: https://games.slashdot.org/sto....
Good stuff, KB, but you did start chasing the carrot! If I wind you up by disagreeing, will you do more security consulting for free?
Is the premise that the C-levels at AMD are going to read /. to discover whether open source security code is safer than closed source security code? Some of us bill by the hour for regurgitating established factual non-opinion-based security information. Hell, some of us are even salaried to do it. What's in it for us?
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Here is what they are using as criteria: https://thedigitalstandard.org...
No...that's what they are saying they are using as criteria. Knowing where to look something up and understanding it are different things. I don't believe Consumer Reports will be hiring any real security experts to conduct their reviews. They'll do the same thing they've always done--best effort approach using reviewers who know how to meet deadlines for writing review text. If you're an expert in a field, you don't take advice from Consumer Reports. Just look at their reviews for product areas in which you are personally expert, and you will see what I mean. It's nice that they've added a column to their matrices about "Security", but for me, a dot in that column is meaningless.
This is true. Facebookers are lonely. That's why I spend my quality time with my real friends: the Slashdot forum community. The warmth, understanding, and charitable attitudes I find on Slashdot help me make it through the day, and always lead me to an accurate assessment of the tech news.
Not long now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/3d-television-set-dead-major-manufacturers-stop-making/
No-one is making 3D TVs beyond 2018.
You are posting as coward because you're afraid of looking like a fool come 2019.
Oh mighty prophet coward, why not post as self so I can check back with you on 2/23/2020 and see how hard it is to find a TV that can display 3D with syncronized glasses? High-end...that's funny. The thing I don't get is why so many people are invested in this concept of calling a perfectly-working feature "dead". I don't get what you think success looks like.