BSD and other people were saying it for years, and you point it out. But, now that 2.6 has sped things up finally, people will pretend things were never bad before and call you a "troll" if you point out that for a long, long time, Linux kernel performance really WASN'T all that it was hyped up to be by Slashdotters. Selective memory is a plague around these parts...
How on earth was this post redundant? I guess it's okay to have endless "I installed 2.6, and things 'seem' faster!" stories, but one guy points out a lack of speed increase for him, and suddenly there's some sort of redundancy.
So far, all I've ever seen regarding desktop improvements with 2.6 are anecdotal "it seems faster" stories that are probably based on the fact you're expecting it to be faster and so convince yourself that you notice such.
All the channels I saw reported weapons found over those pesticides. Wasn't just Fox.
There IS a liberal bias in the media. Even one of BBC's top guys recently left over a probe stating that they misreported the war. I think people call FoxNews right-wing when really they just happen to actually report right-wing things along with left-wing, unlike CNN and the other channels that ONLY do left-wing. So, suddenly, FoxNews is biased because they have Dennis Miller on now and then!!! OMG!!!
I'm sick of Slashdotters repeating this over and over, just because the Slashdot article on the Disney closure of the Florida studio had a headline that said "Disney Closes 2D Studio" (typical misreporting that everyone accepts as fact...this is why people complain about journalistic integrity on this site, because people accept everything as gospel).
It had absolutely nothing to do with 2D. Disney has 2D animators--they just wanted everything in one building, so they killed off the Florida studio.
Disney, meanwhile, decided to scrap all 2D animation recently.
Could you cite a source, please? Disney didn't scrap all 2D animation. They just killed a Florida studio because they want everything in one building, under Eisner's thumb.
This is a popular misconception from the Slashdot article that reported on the animation studio closing. I tried to point it out but got modded down as "Off-topic."
Disney didn't close up their 2D studios. The Florida studio was closed because they want to keep their animation in the same building, and Eisner's micro-managing style made it difficult for a studio to work from a distance like that.
Of course, Slashdot reported it as "DISNEY CLOSES 2D ANIMATION STUDIO," when it had nothing to do with it being 2D at all.
Good thing this wasn't a piece of crap. If you honestly consider the LOTR trilogy of films to be a piece of crap, I don't believe it. I'm sure you went and saw the movies multiple times. If really true, you are insanely uptight and need to enjoy life. They're movies. Not historical documentaries.
Have you even bothered to listen to the DVD commentaries? They explain why they make each and every change to adapt the 1000+ pages of the story into a film structure.
Such a simple change, with large repercussions. Why did he have to make it?
Because in movies, you don't tell, you show.
TTT was full of this--characters who in the books had already made their decisions, were instead run through the process that gave them their decisions, so we could SEE it. It's called film-making.
In the end, on film he wasn't the victim of his addiction as it should have been portrayed.
How did that not come across? He and Frodo struggled with each other for the ring, and that's how they fell off the cliff. All Jackson did was put Frodo in there too--so now BOTH of them were victims of their addiction.
You even see Gollum staring at the ring, oblivious to pain, as he sinks into the burning lava. Come on.
(1) Arwen -- very minor and peripheral character in the book with, as the article mentions, only one line in the entire saga (not that I mind seeing Liv Tyler, but I found that whole subplot extremely contrived).
That subplot was in the appendices. Tolkien once said it was the most important one in the whole saga. He just didn't have room for it in the story.
Come on, if you're making a LOTR movie, you wouldn't weave all that back into the story? It's a great subplot--Elf and mortal man struggling with their love.
The same difference is there--Boromir tried to take the ring, and Faramir rejects it.
We just see the CHARACTER ARC that leads to that decision by Faramir. In movies, you have to have characters that change, or they are boring and tedious. It's really not that big of a change--in the books, he rejects it at first...in the movie, he has to be convinced first. It raises the tension, and also gives credence to Faramir trying to please his fauther.
I think at that point, you didn't need Sam to say "I made a promise." Sean's excellent performance gave the conflict away without words. The same with his realization when he sees the lembas at the bottom. Peter Jackson said they were hoping for Sean Astin to get an Oscar this time around. Too bad.
It wasn't pointless--it gave a point to the Warg fight. And the Warg fight was there to give rising tension to the trek from Edoras to Helm's Deep. They were raising suspense. Faramir's changes were also necessary for the film. These were all explained in the DVD commentaries.
Yes, in movies, there is an arc of tension that you raise and release at the end. The classic novels can get away with settling down and killing all tension, for instance, with the Tom Bombadil sequences. What adds to a world in the books completely destroys it in a movie.
Not only that, but Tolkien freely open about changes made for adaptations. For some reason, geeks have conjured this image of a stingy, stubborn, unflexible professor who wouldn't approve of ANY changes made to his precious story in the movies.
Meanwhile, he suggested in one of his letters cutting Helm's Deep because it is "unnecessary." In fact, Tolkien was always revising and editing and even said he would do things differently than the way he had. And he did sign away the movie rights himself.
The real stubbornness comes from his nerdy fans. Tolkien, from interviews and from his own writings, seem much more grounded and easygoing about things, even his own literary mythologies. The worst thing about Lord of the Rings is the fans.
Slashdot Mirror
BSD and other people were saying it for years, and you point it out. But, now that 2.6 has sped things up finally, people will pretend things were never bad before and call you a "troll" if you point out that for a long, long time, Linux kernel performance really WASN'T all that it was hyped up to be by Slashdotters. Selective memory is a plague around these parts...
How on earth was this post redundant? I guess it's okay to have endless "I installed 2.6, and things 'seem' faster!" stories, but one guy points out a lack of speed increase for him, and suddenly there's some sort of redundancy.
So far, all I've ever seen regarding desktop improvements with 2.6 are anecdotal "it seems faster" stories that are probably based on the fact you're expecting it to be faster and so convince yourself that you notice such.
I see no reason to upgrade for me.
All the channels I saw reported weapons found over those pesticides. Wasn't just Fox.
There IS a liberal bias in the media. Even one of BBC's top guys recently left over a probe stating that they misreported the war. I think people call FoxNews right-wing when really they just happen to actually report right-wing things along with left-wing, unlike CNN and the other channels that ONLY do left-wing. So, suddenly, FoxNews is biased because they have Dennis Miller on now and then!!! OMG!!!
Disney losing Pixar, anyone? Thanks for fucking them over on Toy Story 2, Disney.
I'm sick of Slashdotters repeating this over and over, just because the Slashdot article on the Disney closure of the Florida studio had a headline that said "Disney Closes 2D Studio" (typical misreporting that everyone accepts as fact...this is why people complain about journalistic integrity on this site, because people accept everything as gospel).
It had absolutely nothing to do with 2D. Disney has 2D animators--they just wanted everything in one building, so they killed off the Florida studio.
Haha, finally you cave and admit there is no proof, then vaguely reference some writing credits as "backing evidence." It was a nice try.
Source, please?
Disney, meanwhile, decided to scrap all 2D animation recently.
Could you cite a source, please? Disney didn't scrap all 2D animation. They just killed a Florida studio because they want everything in one building, under Eisner's thumb.
This is a popular misconception from the Slashdot article that reported on the animation studio closing. I tried to point it out but got modded down as "Off-topic."
Disney didn't close up their 2D studios. The Florida studio was closed because they want to keep their animation in the same building, and Eisner's micro-managing style made it difficult for a studio to work from a distance like that.
Of course, Slashdot reported it as "DISNEY CLOSES 2D ANIMATION STUDIO," when it had nothing to do with it being 2D at all.
For instance, when they are in Moria and the Orcs first attack.
Plus, he's a ranger, and, you know, has to hunt things now and then. I imagine he's skilled with a bow, wouldn't you think?
So one theater had the projection too low and cut off the subtitles on the screen. That somehow means multiple movie versions?
If mere hobbits are going, why couldn't Celeborn?
Good thing this wasn't a piece of crap. If you honestly consider the LOTR trilogy of films to be a piece of crap, I don't believe it. I'm sure you went and saw the movies multiple times. If really true, you are insanely uptight and need to enjoy life. They're movies. Not historical documentaries.
Have you even bothered to listen to the DVD commentaries? They explain why they make each and every change to adapt the 1000+ pages of the story into a film structure.
In other words, you're a book purist who doesn't like that the films weren't the books.
You do realize Tolkien himself was willing to cut things like Helm's Deep for film, don't you? He deemed it "unnecessary" and fit for removal.
Tolkien was less uptight than his own fans. I don't get people who don't enjoy these movies and even call them "disappointing." ROTK blew me away.
Do you really want to get into such anal retentive nit-picks when it comes to huge epic fantasy movies? Don't get me started on Star Wars.
Lighten up--they're fun movies. I'm sure you could imagine any sort of explanation.
Such a simple change, with large repercussions. Why did he have to make it?
Because in movies, you don't tell, you show.
TTT was full of this--characters who in the books had already made their decisions, were instead run through the process that gave them their decisions, so we could SEE it. It's called film-making.
In the end, on film he wasn't the victim of his addiction as it should have been portrayed.
How did that not come across? He and Frodo struggled with each other for the ring, and that's how they fell off the cliff. All Jackson did was put Frodo in there too--so now BOTH of them were victims of their addiction.
You even see Gollum staring at the ring, oblivious to pain, as he sinks into the burning lava. Come on.
(1) Arwen -- very minor and peripheral character in the book with, as the article mentions, only one line in the entire saga (not that I mind seeing Liv Tyler, but I found that whole subplot extremely contrived).
That subplot was in the appendices. Tolkien once said it was the most important one in the whole saga. He just didn't have room for it in the story.
Come on, if you're making a LOTR movie, you wouldn't weave all that back into the story? It's a great subplot--Elf and mortal man struggling with their love.
The same difference is there--Boromir tried to take the ring, and Faramir rejects it.
We just see the CHARACTER ARC that leads to that decision by Faramir. In movies, you have to have characters that change, or they are boring and tedious. It's really not that big of a change--in the books, he rejects it at first...in the movie, he has to be convinced first. It raises the tension, and also gives credence to Faramir trying to please his fauther.
I think at that point, you didn't need Sam to say "I made a promise." Sean's excellent performance gave the conflict away without words. The same with his realization when he sees the lembas at the bottom. Peter Jackson said they were hoping for Sean Astin to get an Oscar this time around. Too bad.
It wasn't pointless--it gave a point to the Warg fight. And the Warg fight was there to give rising tension to the trek from Edoras to Helm's Deep. They were raising suspense. Faramir's changes were also necessary for the film. These were all explained in the DVD commentaries.
Yes, in movies, there is an arc of tension that you raise and release at the end. The classic novels can get away with settling down and killing all tension, for instance, with the Tom Bombadil sequences. What adds to a world in the books completely destroys it in a movie.
Not only that, but Tolkien freely open about changes made for adaptations. For some reason, geeks have conjured this image of a stingy, stubborn, unflexible professor who wouldn't approve of ANY changes made to his precious story in the movies.
Meanwhile, he suggested in one of his letters cutting Helm's Deep because it is "unnecessary." In fact, Tolkien was always revising and editing and even said he would do things differently than the way he had. And he did sign away the movie rights himself.
The real stubbornness comes from his nerdy fans. Tolkien, from interviews and from his own writings, seem much more grounded and easygoing about things, even his own literary mythologies. The worst thing about Lord of the Rings is the fans.
I guess I don't consider owning a house/trailer, a truck, multiple TVs, and stereos to be "utter poverty." I just consider it white trash.