P.S. It's possible to have UHC systems in which individuals may purchase additional care for themselves - i.e. UHC as a baseline for health care, and those who want more can get more.
Sure, there are UHC systems that prohibit that sort of thing, but there are also systems where it's allowed, so no pretending that's not an option.
Can you cite something on that? I thought I had read that the contract specified a 3 film commitment (i.e. the studio could make up to 3 films if they wished to), subsequent to which the show could return to the air (if anyone wanted to pick it up, that is)
> As will likely be presented and proven in this case:
Huh?
Isn't it standard operating procedure in large corporate settlements - heck, the entire point of a settlement - to avoid the exposure (legally and publicity-wise) that comes with a full public hearing?
I haven't looked into the case, but I don't see any reason for any of your assertions to be proven (or disproven, for that matter) if Apple settles this case ahead of the full hearing.
Wow, I'm sad that its such an expensive proposition to redub/otherwise edit a film.
It's too bad that it's such an expensive proposition - otherwise we might have gotten to watch Japanese Monster and Hong Kong Kung fu films shown on Saturday afternoon TV. As it is, we've never been able to see Godzilla, Bruce Lee, and so many films of that genre, which I hear are much beloved overseas, but which I have never seen!
It's also too bad that Hollywood hasn't been able to re-distribute its films world-wide - it's just much too expensive to produce a French version of a film. I'll bet Sar Wars might be popular in non-English-speaking countries, too!
And it's just far too expensive despite the fact that all-digital editing suites have drastically reduced the costs of the editing/dialog replacement process. Only kings can afford such things!
Yes, it's all too bad that it's such an expensive proposition.
Sure, the 1.8 low-end model doesn't compare well with the mid-high-end iMacs, for the particular specs that you've focused on.
However, these specs aren't much applicable to the primary reason to pick a Powermac over an iMac: expandability.
drive expansion:
iMac (all models) One internal hard drive bays (1 occupied); one slot-loading format optical drive bay (occupied)
Powrmac (all models) Two internal hard drive bays (1 occupied); one optical drive bay (occupied)
memory expansion:
iMac (all models) 512 PC3200 (400MHz) Supports up to 2GB
Dual 1.8 GHz & Dual 2.0 Ghz 256MB PC3200 (400MHz) Supports up to 4GB
and for the Dual 2.3 and Dual 2.7 Ghz models 512MB PC3200 (400MHz) Supports up to 8GB
PCI expansion:
iMac (all models) no PCI slots
for the Dual 2.0 Three open full-length 33MHz, 64-bit PCI slots
and for the Dual 2.3 and Dual 2.7 Ghz models Three open full-length PCI-X slots: one 133MHz, 64-bit slot and two 100MHz, 64-bit slots
Expandability-wise, the Powermacs leave the iMac far behind.
That said, I think that Apple could've boosted the 1.8 on the specs that you mentioned. However, if someone has a PCI(-X) card that they NEED to use, they're not going to get an iMac, period, and Apple obviously knows that.
Not the nicest way to behave, but as a company Apple does like to make "the money".
I always thought the BCC miniseries got it right - a super human, mega powerful robot, and he looks like a vending machine.
Actually, I found that the BBC series Marvin undercut his personality - he attracted too much attention.
Marvin's depression partially stems from his boredom, and mostly from lack of recognition. He's completely aware that he's a necessary but ugly appliance that everyone can and will ignore when they're done with.
I think going with a smaller-size character makes MUCH more sense - the oversized head also works on the level of displaying his ego (Marvin may be depressed but he's certainly got a big ego), while contrasting nicely with the undersized body. It's a way to make his form humiliating, thus setting up his sardonic personality nicely.
By contrast, I always found the the BBC Marvin to be very distracting - he looked like a 1950's toy, as opposed to an appliance - in short, he wasn't something that could easily be ignored visually. This was reinforced by the direction, which didn't balance or deliberatrely contrast the other actor's movements against Marvin's distinct lack of movement and expression, so he wound up standing out more when he should've faded into the background (I'd always be waiting for him to move).
An exellent example of how a lack of resources can often help the creative process rather than hinder it. When you can do anything you want, you can often overshoot the mark.
Considering that Marvin is being played by a little person in a plastic suit, I don't think the Marvin design was afflicted by SFX-happy designers.
I understand that some people may not find this funny, but I found it spot-on. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but certainly the best visualization of the character I've seen. Combined with Alan Rickman's sardonic tone, I see real potential here.
By comparison, the hulking, oversize robot used in the TV series completely failed to relay a sense of Marvin's personality.
The movie might still suck, but the visuals I've seen so far have been excellent; it seems as if there's a lot of people looking for things to hate - what is this, warm-up for Star Wars?
Thanks for your extensive replies, I admire your tenacity and willingness to engage in a fact-based conversation.
You're depth of research into GW skepticism clearly outstrips mine at this point, and so the conversation won't be productive until I've looked into some of the facts that you've raised. Perhaps we'll re-engage on this (productively!) at a later point.
These last several posts have been your most persuasive mode of argument; the original post - which used a quote that I think we agree is open to interpretation - is a far poorer mode of argument. You're clearly capable of much clearer, non-inflamatory argumentation than that, and thanks for proving this in your follow-up postings.
First of all, if you reply to this post with any smear tactics along the lines of the ridiculosuly-applied Clinton quote, I'll consider the discussion ended. That's just not civil.
Secondly, I'm sorry that this discussion has descended to this level. Let's try to bring it back into a more reasonable tone.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between the research going on (and discussion about that research) within the scientific community, and how that research is interpreted and discussed by the funding community (which is composed of a combination of scientists, bureacrats, politicians, and businesspeople), and to go up one further level (of influence on research), how the research is discussed and interpreted by media, and by then by the general public.
I think we agree that honest debate between scientists is being distorted in its interpretation by funders, the media, and the general public, and this distortion is being carried out by PR mechanisms.
I think it's also clear that this distortion affects funding of further research by influencing the funders's decisions (directly or indirectly), which further colors the debate. And because we don't live in an ideal universe, this distortion can be minimized, but not eliminated.
By quoting Schneider in the way that you do, you obviously buy into that basic understanding (that distortion has entered into the scientific debate). Where we differ is that you believe that the most influential "bad actors" in the interpretation of the science-based global warming debate are partisans for more restrictive environmental regulation.
( At least, this is how I interpret your original post, in which you write "One of your 99%" comment + the Schneider quote. No other interpretations come to mind, please correct me if I missed your original point. )
I see the scales as being (mis-)balanced in the other direction, seeing as the general reprtage around environmental policy decisions seems to have been primarly driven by business-backed PR groups.
Therefore, towards the end of balancing the distortion, I see no problem in scientists working to increase media coverage of their research, assuming that a) they are not promoting their research as an end-run around generating consensus within the scientific community, and b) they conduct this promotion honestly (i.e. not through distortions of the truth).
This is one of the main reasons that I object to your quotation of Schneider - what you see as a radical call to dishonesty, I see as as the honest words of a scientists openly addressing the ethical implications of engaging in science as well as activism. I find the fact that he ends the quote by prescribing that scientists make ethical decisions is enough to interpret the sentence about "scary scenarios" as him invoking an the thoughts of someone NOT making an ethical decision for comparison.
And while I'll concede that you have honestly (if incorrectly, in my estimation) come to the opposite conclusion regarding this quote, I think it's important that neither side discounts the possibility of there being bad apples in every barrel, and that this applies to both sides of the debate.
The most important thing is to understand where the greatest influence lies, and which "side" dominates that influence. I don't believe that the influence exists anymore (if it ever did) at the level of the research scientists themselves, but rather at the media/promotion level. I further believe that the the money at this level primarily lies with groups promoting the research results are useful for promoting GW-skepticism.
Why I brought the GCC up in the first place is because their primary role in distorting the representation of scientific research during the Kyoto Conference and the U.S. backing out of adopting the Kyoto Protocoals; according to the LA Times (December 7, 1997) the GCC spent $13 million on their 1997 anti-Kyoto ad campaign. That's not chump c
There's plenty more out there for those who are willing to look.
Finally, I looked up that Schneider quote (it's from 2. J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989., which is unf. not in discover.com's web archive).
However, there is plenty of evidence that this quote is taken out of context - i.e. you've fallen prey to someone's "talking points" (though at least you included the last sentences, which are often left out - check Google for easy proof).
This words are particularly telling: What I was telling the Discover interviewer,
of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that
imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular
media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the
soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a
clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the "ends
justify the means" philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have
actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings.
By your rationale it's perfectly fine for Global Warming skeptics to mike wild accusations, false or not, about the Global warming movement in the interest of firthering science?
Of course not, I expect honesty, and that honesty should be based on accuracy, not ignorance.
Well, as a geek, I don't find any of his stuff funny.
That's totally cool, no one's trying to change your tastes.
However, the fact that his work is not to your taste doesn't mean that it's not/.-appropriate.
Much of the rest of your post goes on to detail how either a) several topics of general interest, and several points of shared experience on this site are not to your interest or do not reflect your personal experience.
Again, that's totally cool, no one's trying to change your tastes, but please don't pretend that those topics / experiences aren't generally relevant to the/. community at large.
And really, I doubt he's the right guy to ask about getting laid. Come on, now.
While I think you missed the humor behind that part of the message, you also totally overestimate the social skills of the/, community.:)
and the environmentalists groups also have large amounts of money.
Define "huge". do they have the cash to, for example, drop $250k on a pundit (referencing the Dept of Ed and Armstrong Williams)
More importantly government grants make up a huge amount of funding in this area, while funding from energy companies is miniscule, enough to be considered non-existent...
You're missing the point - this isn't about the $ funding research; my point is the $ selectively promoting the results of research which support the agenda of the energy companies.
These are different pools of $, and are not reported in the same way. LOTS of energy company PR $ goes into promoting research that they like; the effectiveness of the promotion is far more important than the viability of the research itself.
Furthermore, to address your particular point, the energy companies do have a great deal of influence over how government grants get spent; do you have any idea how many "former" (and sometimes current, and most often future) energy industry representatives have gov't appointments? Google some DOE staff histories and you'll see lots of energy company histories.
politics can only corrupt science.
Politics has corrupted science; science can certainly consider making a stink about the corruption so that people begin to pay attention to the actual science, as a first step to countering the existing corruption.
How to do so is up for debate, but pretending that scientists should ignore the problem is beyond foolish.
1. he raps about being a loser and a nerd and getting beaten up in school 2. he raps about a great number of geeky pop cultural topics, including: Star Wars, Star Trek, D&D, cartoons, and comic books 3. he provides the voices for several of the most consistently entertaining characters on two of the most consistently entertaining TV shows on the air now: Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Sealab2021 (BTW if you don't particularly enjoy these shows, perhaps an interview with one of the actors isn't a very productive place to post) 4. ATHF and SL also constantly reference the same geeky pop cultural topics covered above, and more 5. mc chris was also does (did?) behind-the-scenes work on those shows, which might be interesting to those wondering about how adult swim shows get on the air 6. he has managed to make a successful career out of these non-mainstream ventures 7. the real reason that/. should be interested: despite all of the nerdiness demonstrated above, mac chris gets laid.
Yes, he's a nerd with no saleable skills beyond his own nerddom and a damned high voice - and yet he gets both the cash and the ladies.
He never claimed to be a technical genius, he's just a funny guy who has found success through rap and animation covering topics that many of us (yes, incl. CmdrTaco) greatly enjoy. That's his niche, which the majority of the questions managed to ignore... and somehow he's expected to answer questions about protools minutiae? Based on what? He raps, he doesn't make beats!
Hey idiots, you were interviewing someone called "mc chris". Ask him about his rap influences, past and present! Ask him about what inspires his music! Ask him about being an animation voice actor! Ask him... anything relevant!
ASK HIM SOMETHING YOU CAN USE: HOW A NERD CAN GET LAID, MAN, ASK HOW A NERD CAN GET LAID.
So congratulations/., your pissy questions and shitty attitude just sent packing one of this community's few chances to glean some insight on how to get some nookie. I won't pretend his answers were good, but I don't imagine anyone wanting to invest much in an interview w/ such shitty questions.
And yes, I'm regretting not posting questions myself. I figured there would be plenty of positive/. interest in a geek made good, and boy was I wrong.
You include that quote as if it is telling against Schneider (who I am otherwise unfam. with).
Rather, it is telling about the current media environment in which the media coverage of scientific research is conducted in the same sad manner as our current political discourse (i.e. fake "balance" rules all - media producers seek to create a sense of controversy where no significant controversry exists and therefore encourage a perception of equal weight on both sides of any issue, even when one of the "sides" fails to hold up to any signifcant scrutiny ). This tilted coverage has a signifcant impact on scientific funding, as those making decisions are not looking at the quality of the research itself, but rather at the (skewed) coverage of the research.
At least in the case of the global warming debate, this is a correct observation - there is significant media-oriented funding - originating with the energy industries and their political friends - behind global warming research that supports the agenda of the energy industries. This threatens to color the public aspect of the debate.
The obvious conclusion is that that scientists on the other side of the debate (who had been focused on the research, or the funding for mmore research, rather than the publicization of ongoing/completed research) need to become more aware of generating publicity for their own work outside of the scientific community.
However, he is aware of the ethical issues involved in being a scientist and an activist, and so is upfront about stating those what would be scarificed. His description of these issues sounds distasteful because he finds the work distasteful.
Meanwhile, this discussion of distasteful tactics - if it ever happened - was quietly resolved behind closed doors a long time ago on the other side of the global warming debate through selective funding; the energy companies have the money to publicize the results they prefer, so they do so, while selectively funding the scientists whose approaches generate data that they prefer.
This Schneider may be a jerkwad in other areas, but in this case I think he's simply being a harsh realist.
Exactly; Scrameustache is (barely) technically correct in pointing out that casting a black actor is a change from the generally-accepted race of the character (most Brits are caucasians), but only insofar as the character has, prior to this movie, been acted by caucasians. Point to him.
However, he gets a hundred points taken off for the charges of tokenism, which are downright foolish and insulting. Tokenism is a derogatory term referring to the practice of including a character for no particular reason beyond expanding racial/sexual/religious representation - in other words, the character is a "token" representative of a given group, but is otherwise unimportant to the actual story (and could therefore be easily discarded).
From what I can see in the trailer, Zaphod's character has not been altered in any significant way beyond casting a traditionally white role with a black actor. Furthermore, Zaphod is a central character, second only to Arthur (while actually propelling the plot moreso than Mr. Dent). I see no evidence in the trailer, or any articles that I've read, which would indicate that Zaphod has been made any less significant in this adapation.
And yes, the fact that Scram sees tokenism in this casting choice reflects poorly on his undertsanding of racial issues. While it doesn't necessarily make him a racist, it does indicate that he has completely missed the point as to why "tokenism" is a poor practice.
And not that it matters, but my personal take on this casting is that Zaphod's "tendency to stand out slightly" (poorly paraphrased) in British culture would actually map well to the experience of a black person living in a primarily white culture such as the UK. Beyond that, it doesn't matter a whit - black people were common enough in the UK since long before the events of HHGTTG, and given that Zaphod's character lacks significant racially-specific characterization, I see no reason not to cast him as a black man. End of story.
Are you talking about the same Crichton behind Rising Sun (beware the wily Japanese, for they will leverage their tech to take over the world!), Disclosure (beware the waves of predatory women who will leverage sexual harassment laws against innocent men!), and Congo (beware... super-intelligent apes!)?
Yes, that last one was mean, pardon me. The first two are fair game, though.
Michael Crichton is an occasionally enjoyable author/director/producer of entertainment, but trying to glean the truth (let alone useful predictions about future events) from his work will get you about as far as trying to learn something useful about climate change by watching The Day After Tomorrow.
It's too bad that Mr. Crichton doesn't understand this; his work is at its best when he doesn't attempt to include a "timely message" (E/R, Eaters of the Dead).
This is generally true, but in this particular case New Line DID hold "Trilogy" screenings (in a limited number of theaters) last year upon the release of ROTK (FOTR EE , TTT RR, followed by the theatrical ROTK).
This apparently was profitable for the theaters, even when preceded by a few weeks(or weekends?) of showings of the FOTR and TTT EEs, to build up anticipation. I'm guessing that the studios subsidized the screenings as a publicity cost.
I'm assuming that the studios don't think that the publicity payoff will be worth the costs this time around, esp. as this is a special edition of a movie that the hard-core fans have already seen 75% of.
It's too bad; I gathered a big group to attend last year's Trilogy screening and had a heck of a time (the tolkien community who turned out were great, and the theater-staff were excellent).
Still, I can understand the studio's hesistation to go all-out promoting a DVD release in the same way that they would a film release.
This is a good idea for a feature, but it would add a significant cost to each computer, probably equivalent to half/full cost of a rechargeable battery (as it would need at least ten minutes of power - most users ignore alert notifications at first (see laptop users forgetting to recharge their batteries), which indicates that a notification system to the end-user also needs to be built-in (onscreen like w/ laptops, not a shrieking piezo alarm like in most UPSs).
So yeah, good idea, but not trivial (if it's gonna be done even half-right). At least not for a few years (it'd need to be introduced as a high-end option, and take several product generations to become a "gotta have it")
I mean, Evil Dead 2 was really a 1.5 release... (as it bridged the gap between being a remake and a sequel)... and the third film, "Army of Darkness" (aka. "Medieval Dead", a.k.a "Bruce Cambell vs. The Army of Darkness") was never formally referred to as "Evil Dead 3"... but while those names are technically up for grabs, the studio wouldn't actually name the new remake "Evil Dead 2" or "Evil Dead 3" as this could be confusing to the moviegoers, and higher numbers ("Evil Dead 4") are also out the window as that would turn off people who never saw the earlier ones.
Therefore, the only possible method of titling this film is to use a branching versioning scheme, and therefore (after accounting for the special edition version of Evil Dead 1 released to DVD) it is entirely clear that the re-remake's title will be: Evil Dead 1.5.2
Seeing the inevitability of this I have registered that domain, and expect a call from "Ghost House" productions any day now...
> Sure, for immediate results, it's best to hire someone who > already has experience under his/her belt.
Re: the parent post, I Just realized that I skipped over this sentence, which invalidates a chunk of my message. Please pardon the error.
However, I still believe that you are something is being read that isn't there - paticularly the statement if you don't know it now, you never will" indicates a message that is nowhere (hidden or otherwise) to be found in the original post.
I think that you've grossly misinterpreted the parent post; the point being made isn't that one cannot learn art, but rather that those with professional levels of experience will generate far preferable output compared to those with much less experience.
Seeing as the initial question was made by a professional programmer seeking to generate professional-level artwork, the reply simply pointed out that professional-level work (in any discipline) comes from a combination of training, practice and experience (unusual talent/aptitude already being removed as a factor from this discussion).
The implied logical conclusion (which you may have missed) is that the questioner would not wish to inflict unprofessional artwork on his clients (as this would devalue his professional-level programming), and that therefore paying for pro-level artwork would be the way to go.
In no way is the post indicating that the questioner can't learn to generate pro-level artwork; it is, however, cautiously disabusing the questioner of the notion that there are shortcuts to training, practice and experience, and that trying to save some money by shortchanging the client with shoddy graphics (at least for any work done in the short-medium term) would be a bad idea.
I don't see how this post reflects an anti-intellectual attitude; if anything, the ideas that one must take on the process of learning in order to become good at something, and that some things require more learning than others, are pretty basic tenets of intellectualism.
Finally, nowhere in this post does it state anything equivalent to "if you don't know it now, you never will".
P.S. this post was written by an art school grad whose first few years of programming efforts was for shite, thanks (thanks to training, practice, and experience I can now program myself out of and back into the proverbial paper bag).
Well-performed eye motion is so central to good animation, but everything I've seen from the trailers makes the children look like sharks stuffed into the bodies of their child victims; I honestly find it that chilling.
Tom Hanks's characters seem to be treated a bit better, probably because the animators/sculptors had more & better source material to work with; still, better is relative to "awful" in this case.
This is very disappointing; Chris Van Allsburg's work is very sculptural in nature (and uses a distanced style and VERY careful framinh to invoke a sense of the wonder, and sometimes of the sublime), but from the trailers it appears that the translation to a full-motion format failed his style terribly.
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. It's possible to have UHC systems in which individuals may purchase additional care for themselves - i.e. UHC as a baseline for health care, and those who want more can get more.
Sure, there are UHC systems that prohibit that sort of thing, but there are also systems where it's allowed, so no pretending that's not an option.
Yes, being able to put that $200+ billion in annual administrative costs back into the economy for equivalent levels of care made universally available to the entire country certainly would suck.
Oh wait, it would actually rock.
Can you cite something on that? I thought I had read that the contract specified a 3 film commitment (i.e. the studio could make up to 3 films if they wished to), subsequent to which the show could return to the air (if anyone wanted to pick it up, that is)
> As will likely be presented and proven in this case:
Huh?
Isn't it standard operating procedure in large corporate settlements - heck, the entire point of a settlement - to avoid the exposure (legally and publicity-wise) that comes with a full public hearing?
I haven't looked into the case, but I don't see any reason for any of your assertions to be proven (or disproven, for that matter) if Apple settles this case ahead of the full hearing.
Wow, I'm sad that its such an expensive proposition to redub/otherwise edit a film.
It's too bad that it's such an expensive proposition - otherwise we might have gotten to watch Japanese Monster and Hong Kong Kung fu films shown on Saturday afternoon TV. As it is, we've never been able to see Godzilla, Bruce Lee, and so many films of that genre, which I hear are much beloved overseas, but which I have never seen!
It's also too bad that Hollywood hasn't been able to re-distribute its films world-wide - it's just much too expensive to produce a French version of a film. I'll bet Sar Wars might be popular in non-English-speaking countries, too!
And it's just far too expensive despite the fact that all-digital editing suites have drastically reduced the costs of the editing/dialog replacement process. Only kings can afford such things!
Yes, it's all too bad that it's such an expensive proposition.
Sure, the 1.8 low-end model doesn't compare well with the mid-high-end iMacs, for the particular specs that you've focused on.
However, these specs aren't much applicable to the primary reason to pick a Powermac over an iMac: expandability.
drive expansion:
iMac (all models)
One internal hard drive bays (1 occupied); one slot-loading format optical drive bay (occupied)
Powrmac (all models)
Two internal hard drive bays (1 occupied); one optical drive bay (occupied)
memory expansion:
iMac (all models)
512 PC3200 (400MHz) Supports up to 2GB
Dual 1.8 GHz & Dual 2.0 Ghz
256MB PC3200 (400MHz) Supports up to 4GB
and for the Dual 2.3 and Dual 2.7 Ghz models
512MB PC3200 (400MHz) Supports up to 8GB
PCI expansion:
iMac (all models)
no PCI slots
for the Dual 2.0
Three open full-length 33MHz, 64-bit PCI slots
and for the Dual 2.3 and Dual 2.7 Ghz models
Three open full-length PCI-X slots: one 133MHz, 64-bit slot and two 100MHz, 64-bit slots
Expandability-wise, the Powermacs leave the iMac far behind.
That said, I think that Apple could've boosted the 1.8 on the specs that you mentioned. However, if someone has a PCI(-X) card that they NEED to use, they're not going to get an iMac, period, and Apple obviously knows that.
Not the nicest way to behave, but as a company Apple does like to make "the money".
I always thought the BCC miniseries got it right - a super human, mega powerful robot, and he looks like a vending machine.
Actually, I found that the BBC series Marvin undercut his personality - he attracted too much attention.
Marvin's depression partially stems from his boredom, and mostly from lack of recognition. He's completely aware that he's a necessary but ugly appliance that everyone can and will ignore when they're done with.
I think going with a smaller-size character makes MUCH more sense - the oversized head also works on the level of displaying his ego (Marvin may be depressed but he's certainly got a big ego), while contrasting nicely with the undersized body. It's a way to make his form humiliating, thus setting up his sardonic personality nicely.
By contrast, I always found the the BBC Marvin to be very distracting - he looked like a 1950's toy, as opposed to an appliance - in short, he wasn't something that could easily be ignored visually. This was reinforced by the direction, which didn't balance or deliberatrely contrast the other actor's movements against Marvin's distinct lack of movement and expression, so he wound up standing out more when he should've faded into the background (I'd always be waiting for him to move).
An exellent example of how a lack of resources can often help the creative process rather than hinder it. When you can do anything you want, you can often overshoot the mark.
Considering that Marvin is being played by a little person in a plastic suit, I don't think the Marvin design was afflicted by SFX-happy designers.
Exactly!
I understand that some people may not find this funny, but I found it spot-on. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but certainly the best visualization of the character I've seen. Combined with Alan Rickman's sardonic tone, I see real potential here.
By comparison, the hulking, oversize robot used in the TV series completely failed to relay a sense of Marvin's personality.
The movie might still suck, but the visuals I've seen so far have been excellent; it seems as if there's a lot of people looking for things to hate - what is this, warm-up for Star Wars?
Thanks for your extensive replies, I admire your tenacity and willingness to engage in a fact-based conversation.
You're depth of research into GW skepticism clearly outstrips mine at this point, and so the conversation won't be productive until I've looked into some of the facts that you've raised. Perhaps we'll re-engage on this (productively!) at a later point.
These last several posts have been your most persuasive mode of argument; the original post - which used a quote that I think we agree is open to interpretation - is a far poorer mode of argument. You're clearly capable of much clearer, non-inflamatory argumentation than that, and thanks for proving this in your follow-up postings.
Yeesh.
First of all, if you reply to this post with any smear tactics along the lines of the ridiculosuly-applied Clinton quote, I'll consider the discussion ended. That's just not civil.
Secondly, I'm sorry that this discussion has descended to this level. Let's try to bring it back into a more reasonable tone.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between the research going on (and discussion about that research) within the scientific community, and how that research is interpreted and discussed by the funding community (which is composed of a combination of scientists, bureacrats, politicians, and businesspeople), and to go up one further level (of influence on research), how the research is discussed and interpreted by media, and by then by the general public.
I think we agree that honest debate between scientists is being distorted in its interpretation by funders, the media, and the general public, and this distortion is being carried out by PR mechanisms.
I think it's also clear that this distortion affects funding of further research by influencing the funders's decisions (directly or indirectly), which further colors the debate. And because we don't live in an ideal universe, this distortion can be minimized, but not eliminated.
By quoting Schneider in the way that you do, you obviously buy into that basic understanding (that distortion has entered into the scientific debate). Where we differ is that you believe that the most influential "bad actors" in the interpretation of the science-based global warming debate are partisans for more restrictive environmental regulation.
( At least, this is how I interpret your original post, in which you write "One of your 99%" comment + the Schneider quote. No other interpretations come to mind, please correct me if I missed your original point. )
I see the scales as being (mis-)balanced in the other direction, seeing as the general reprtage around environmental policy decisions seems to have been primarly driven by business-backed PR groups.
Therefore, towards the end of balancing the distortion, I see no problem in scientists working to increase media coverage of their research, assuming that a) they are not promoting their research as an end-run around generating consensus within the scientific community, and b) they conduct this promotion honestly (i.e. not through distortions of the truth).
This is one of the main reasons that I object to your quotation of Schneider - what you see as a radical call to dishonesty, I see as as the honest words of a scientists openly addressing the ethical implications of engaging in science as well as activism. I find the fact that he ends the quote by prescribing that scientists make ethical decisions is enough to interpret the sentence about "scary scenarios" as him invoking an the thoughts of someone NOT making an ethical decision for comparison.
And while I'll concede that you have honestly (if incorrectly, in my estimation) come to the opposite conclusion regarding this quote, I think it's important that neither side discounts the possibility of there being bad apples in every barrel, and that this applies to both sides of the debate.
The most important thing is to understand where the greatest influence lies, and which "side" dominates that influence. I don't believe that the influence exists anymore (if it ever did) at the level of the research scientists themselves, but rather at the media/promotion level. I further believe that the the money at this level primarily lies with groups promoting the research results are useful for promoting GW-skepticism.
Why I brought the GCC up in the first place is because their primary role in distorting the representation of scientific research during the Kyoto Conference and the U.S. backing out of adopting the Kyoto Protocoals; according to the LA Times (December 7, 1997) the GCC spent $13 million on their 1997 anti-Kyoto ad campaign. That's not chump c
But your assuming Energy Industry corruption where it may or may not exist.
H igherEd_2003.html
h tml
Some of us live in the real world. Please join us.
Show where energy companies have financed GW skepticisim.
Here's an article detailing the GCC, a (former) energy industry-funded interest group.
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/gcc.html
Here's an article detailing how higher-education-based research "may" be influenced by energy company funding.
http://www.campaignexxonmobil.org/news/News_Chron
There's plenty more out there for those who are willing to look.
Finally, I looked up that Schneider quote (it's from 2. J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989., which is unf. not in discover.com's web archive).
However, there is plenty of evidence that this quote is taken out of context - i.e. you've fallen prey to someone's "talking points" (though at least you included the last sentences, which are often left out - check Google for easy proof).
Without the original article, we can at least read a related message by Schneider, addressing the "controversy" over his quote.
http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.
This words are particularly telling:
What I was telling the Discover interviewer,
of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that
imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular
media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the
soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a
clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the "ends
justify the means" philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have
actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings.
By your rationale it's perfectly fine for Global Warming skeptics to mike wild accusations, false or not, about the Global warming movement in the interest of firthering science?
Of course not, I expect honesty, and that honesty should be based on accuracy, not ignorance.
Well, as a geek, I don't find any of his stuff funny.
/.-appropriate.
/. community at large.
/, community. :)
That's totally cool, no one's trying to change your tastes.
However, the fact that his work is not to your taste doesn't mean that it's not
Much of the rest of your post goes on to detail how either a) several topics of general interest, and several points of shared experience on this site are not to your interest or do not reflect your personal experience.
Again, that's totally cool, no one's trying to change your tastes, but please don't pretend that those topics / experiences aren't generally relevant to the
And really, I doubt he's the right guy to ask about getting laid. Come on, now.
While I think you missed the humor behind that part of the message, you also totally overestimate the social skills of the
Define "huge". do they have the cash to, for example, drop $250k on a pundit (referencing the Dept of Ed and Armstrong Williams)
You're missing the point - this isn't about the $ funding research; my point is the $ selectively promoting the results of research which support the agenda of the energy companies.
These are different pools of $, and are not reported in the same way. LOTS of energy company PR $ goes into promoting research that they like; the effectiveness of the promotion is far more important than the viability of the research itself.
Furthermore, to address your particular point, the energy companies do have a great deal of influence over how government grants get spent; do you have any idea how many "former" (and sometimes current, and most often future) energy industry representatives have gov't appointments? Google some DOE staff histories and you'll see lots of energy company histories.
Politics has corrupted science; science can certainly consider making a stink about the corruption so that people begin to pay attention to the actual science, as a first step to countering the existing corruption.
How to do so is up for debate, but pretending that scientists should ignore the problem is beyond foolish.
Losing my earlier mods for this:
/. should be interested: despite all of the nerdiness demonstrated above, mac chris gets laid.
/., your pissy questions and shitty attitude just sent packing one of this community's few chances to glean some insight on how to get some nookie. I won't pretend his answers were good, but I don't imagine anyone wanting to invest much in an interview w/ such shitty questions.
/. interest in a geek made good, and boy was I wrong.
10 reasons why mc chris is relevant to Slashdot:
1. he raps about being a loser and a nerd and getting beaten up in school
2. he raps about a great number of geeky pop cultural topics, including: Star Wars, Star Trek, D&D, cartoons, and comic books
3. he provides the voices for several of the most consistently entertaining characters on two of the most consistently entertaining TV shows on the air now: Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Sealab2021 (BTW if you don't particularly enjoy these shows, perhaps an interview with one of the actors isn't a very productive place to post)
4. ATHF and SL also constantly reference the same geeky pop cultural topics covered above, and more
5. mc chris was also does (did?) behind-the-scenes work on those shows, which might be interesting to those wondering about how adult swim shows get on the air
6. he has managed to make a successful career out of these non-mainstream ventures
7. the real reason that
Yes, he's a nerd with no saleable skills beyond his own nerddom and a damned high voice - and yet he gets both the cash and the ladies.
He never claimed to be a technical genius, he's just a funny guy who has found success through rap and animation covering topics that many of us (yes, incl. CmdrTaco) greatly enjoy. That's his niche, which the majority of the questions managed to ignore... and somehow he's expected to answer questions about protools minutiae? Based on what? He raps, he doesn't make beats!
Hey idiots, you were interviewing someone called "mc chris". Ask him about his rap influences, past and present! Ask him about what inspires his music! Ask him about being an animation voice actor! Ask him... anything relevant!
ASK HIM SOMETHING YOU CAN USE: HOW A NERD CAN GET LAID, MAN, ASK HOW A NERD CAN GET LAID.
So congratulations
And yes, I'm regretting not posting questions myself. I figured there would be plenty of positive
You include that quote as if it is telling against Schneider (who I am otherwise unfam. with).
Rather, it is telling about the current media environment in which the media coverage of scientific research is conducted in the same sad manner as our current political discourse (i.e. fake "balance" rules all - media producers seek to create a sense of controversy where no significant controversry exists and therefore encourage a perception of equal weight on both sides of any issue, even when one of the "sides" fails to hold up to any signifcant scrutiny ). This tilted coverage has a signifcant impact on scientific funding, as those making decisions are not looking at the quality of the research itself, but rather at the (skewed) coverage of the research.
At least in the case of the global warming debate, this is a correct observation - there is significant media-oriented funding - originating with the energy industries and their political friends - behind global warming research that supports the agenda of the energy industries. This threatens to color the public aspect of the debate.
The obvious conclusion is that that scientists on the other side of the debate (who had been focused on the research, or the funding for mmore research, rather than the publicization of ongoing/completed research) need to become more aware of generating publicity for their own work outside of the scientific community.
However, he is aware of the ethical issues involved in being a scientist and an activist, and so is upfront about stating those what would be scarificed. His description of these issues sounds distasteful because he finds the work distasteful.
Meanwhile, this discussion of distasteful tactics - if it ever happened - was quietly resolved behind closed doors a long time ago on the other side of the global warming debate through selective funding; the energy companies have the money to publicize the results they prefer, so they do so, while selectively funding the scientists whose approaches generate data that they prefer.
This Schneider may be a jerkwad in other areas, but in this case I think he's simply being a harsh realist.
Whoops! Ah well, my basic argument still stands (I just swapped their names in my mind).
And secondly, what could it possibly matter?
Exactly; Scrameustache is (barely) technically correct in pointing out that casting a black actor is a change from the generally-accepted race of the character (most Brits are caucasians), but only insofar as the character has, prior to this movie, been acted by caucasians. Point to him.
However, he gets a hundred points taken off for the charges of tokenism, which are downright foolish and insulting. Tokenism is a derogatory term referring to the practice of including a character for no particular reason beyond expanding racial/sexual/religious representation - in other words, the character is a "token" representative of a given group, but is otherwise unimportant to the actual story (and could therefore be easily discarded).
From what I can see in the trailer, Zaphod's character has not been altered in any significant way beyond casting a traditionally white role with a black actor. Furthermore, Zaphod is a central character, second only to Arthur (while actually propelling the plot moreso than Mr. Dent). I see no evidence in the trailer, or any articles that I've read, which would indicate that Zaphod has been made any less significant in this adapation.
And yes, the fact that Scram sees tokenism in this casting choice reflects poorly on his undertsanding of racial issues. While it doesn't necessarily make him a racist, it does indicate that he has completely missed the point as to why "tokenism" is a poor practice.
And not that it matters, but my personal take on this casting is that Zaphod's "tendency to stand out slightly" (poorly paraphrased) in British culture would actually map well to the experience of a black person living in a primarily white culture such as the UK. Beyond that, it doesn't matter a whit - black people were common enough in the UK since long before the events of HHGTTG, and given that Zaphod's character lacks significant racially-specific characterization, I see no reason not to cast him as a black man. End of story.
Are you kidding? The last sections are totally trippy, especially the sword coming outta the protagnists's son's mouth. Freaky!
Of course, the part where the dragon sweeps the stars from the sky TOTALLY reminded me of "The Hobbit", but I guess ya gotta crib from the best...
Are you talking about the same Crichton behind Rising Sun (beware the wily Japanese, for they will leverage their tech to take over the world!), Disclosure (beware the waves of predatory women who will leverage sexual harassment laws against innocent men!), and Congo (beware... super-intelligent apes!)?
Yes, that last one was mean, pardon me. The first two are fair game, though.
Michael Crichton is an occasionally enjoyable author/director/producer of entertainment, but trying to glean the truth (let alone useful predictions about future events) from his work will get you about as far as trying to learn something useful about climate change by watching The Day After Tomorrow.
It's too bad that Mr. Crichton doesn't understand this; his work is at its best when he doesn't attempt to include a "timely message" (E/R, Eaters of the Dead).
This is generally true, but in this particular case New Line DID hold "Trilogy" screenings (in a limited number of theaters) last year upon the release of ROTK (FOTR EE , TTT RR, followed by the theatrical ROTK).
This apparently was profitable for the theaters, even when preceded by a few weeks(or weekends?) of showings of the FOTR and TTT EEs, to build up anticipation. I'm guessing that the studios subsidized the screenings as a publicity cost.
I'm assuming that the studios don't think that the publicity payoff will be worth the costs this time around, esp. as this is a special edition of a movie that the hard-core fans have already seen 75% of.
It's too bad; I gathered a big group to attend last year's Trilogy screening and had a heck of a time (the tolkien community who turned out were great, and the theater-staff were excellent).
Still, I can understand the studio's hesistation to go all-out promoting a DVD release in the same way that they would a film release.
This is a good idea for a feature, but it would add a significant cost to each computer, probably equivalent to half/full cost of a rechargeable battery (as it would need at least ten minutes of power - most users ignore alert notifications at first (see laptop users forgetting to recharge their batteries), which indicates that a notification system to the end-user also needs to be built-in (onscreen like w/ laptops, not a shrieking piezo alarm like in most UPSs).
So yeah, good idea, but not trivial (if it's gonna be done even half-right). At least not for a few years (it'd need to be introduced as a high-end option, and take several product generations to become a "gotta have it")
I mean, Evil Dead 2 was really a 1.5 release... (as it bridged the gap between being a remake and a sequel)... and the third film, "Army of Darkness" (aka. "Medieval Dead", a.k.a "Bruce Cambell vs. The Army of Darkness") was never formally referred to as "Evil Dead 3"... but while those names are technically up for grabs, the studio wouldn't actually name the new remake "Evil Dead 2" or "Evil Dead 3" as this could be confusing to the moviegoers, and higher numbers ("Evil Dead 4") are also out the window as that would turn off people who never saw the earlier ones.
Therefore, the only possible method of titling this film is to use a branching versioning scheme, and therefore (after accounting for the special edition version of Evil Dead 1 released to DVD) it is entirely clear that the re-remake's title will be: Evil Dead 1.5.2
Seeing the inevitability of this I have registered that domain, and expect a call from "Ghost House" productions any day now...
> Sure, for immediate results, it's best to hire someone who
> already has experience under his/her belt.
Re: the parent post, I Just realized that I skipped over this sentence, which invalidates a chunk of my message. Please pardon the error.
However, I still believe that you are something is being read that isn't there - paticularly the statement if you don't know it now, you never will" indicates a message that is nowhere (hidden or otherwise) to be found in the original post.
I think that you've grossly misinterpreted the parent post; the point being made isn't that one cannot learn art, but rather that those with professional levels of experience will generate far preferable output compared to those with much less experience.
Seeing as the initial question was made by a professional programmer seeking to generate professional-level artwork, the reply simply pointed out that professional-level work (in any discipline) comes from a combination of training, practice and experience (unusual talent/aptitude already being removed as a factor from this discussion).
The implied logical conclusion (which you may have missed) is that the questioner would not wish to inflict unprofessional artwork on his clients (as this would devalue his professional-level programming), and that therefore paying for pro-level artwork would be the way to go.
In no way is the post indicating that the questioner can't learn to generate pro-level artwork; it is, however, cautiously disabusing the questioner of the notion that there are shortcuts to training, practice and experience, and that trying to save some money by shortchanging the client with shoddy graphics (at least for any work done in the short-medium term) would be a bad idea.
I don't see how this post reflects an anti-intellectual attitude; if anything, the ideas that one must take on the process of learning in order to become good at something, and that some things require more learning than others, are pretty basic tenets of intellectualism.
Finally, nowhere in this post does it state anything equivalent to "if you don't know it now, you never will".
P.S. this post was written by an art school grad whose first few years of programming efforts was for shite, thanks (thanks to training, practice, and experience I can now program myself out of and back into the proverbial paper bag).
Well-performed eye motion is so central to good animation, but everything I've seen from the trailers makes the children look like sharks stuffed into the bodies of their child victims; I honestly find it that chilling.
Tom Hanks's characters seem to be treated a bit better, probably because the animators/sculptors had more & better source material to work with; still, better is relative to "awful" in this case.
This is very disappointing; Chris Van Allsburg's work is very sculptural in nature (and uses a distanced style and VERY careful framinh to invoke a sense of the wonder, and sometimes of the sublime), but from the trailers it appears that the translation to a full-motion format failed his style terribly.