No, I don't see the difference, because, as I pointed out, this has been going on for centuries.
I, Robot certainly *was* an Adaptation, a retelling of an Asimov story on the screen. That doesn't mean it was *good*. But it's an adaptation.
There's no guarrentee or neccessity of faith to the original author. Either the director thought that the adaptation he made was worthy of film for artistic merit, or felt that he read something into the Asimov stories that wasn't explicit on paper, or the point of taking the Asimov stories and putting them on the screen wass that they'll make money when sold to a new audience. None of these are a movie-making sin. Movie making is an industry, and directors, writers, and executives have varied reasons for putting their stuff on the screen.
The point is, audiences enjoyed it. If you enjoy something and someone else enjoys it for a different reason, is that "lack of faith to the original author"? I suppose it depends how deep you read into the author's message of intent, right?
Do you really believe adapation started with Hollywood?
Throughout history, Adaptation has been used to attempt to retell a story to a new audience using a new medium. The Iliad was an adaptation of an orally transmitted poem, parts of which were adapted (and heavily changed!) by Tragedians such as Euripides, parts of which were heavily changed in re-adaptation to epic by later poets (e.g., Vergil), parts of which were heavily changed with translators adaptations.
Even in the stage, Plautus and Terrence (Roman Dramatists) essentially built careers off of re-adapting earlier greek works into new plays. These are hailed as some of the heights of Roman Theater.
"Faith to the Book" is a touch silly when you start talking in terms of historical value or "the author's original wishes". Asimov didn't have hundreds of evil killbots, but modern audiences don't want to watch actors talk about pedantic philosophy for three hours. That doesn't make the base of it any less Asimov's original story. It's an adaptation to the screen.
Adapatation has been going on far longer than hollywood. The version of the story you mentioned in your post is an adaptation. So long as audiences know that they're watching an adaptation - which most of them do - adaptation is a fair and reasonable way to bring interesting stories to a new audience. It's been going on for thousands of years, you're not going to stop it now.
Okay, I'm biased, since I'm part of the group that runs it, but here at Tufts we have a website called tuftslife.com which is run by students, for students.
Little burden on the administration, who pays hardly anything to run the website (student activities pays hosting), incredible benefits to the student body - at a school of around 5000, we get 4500ish uniques a day.
Everyone uses it to find out what's going on - it was an attempt to create a paperless campus, free from those awful fliers and chalkings everywhere.
The anything-goes gang is suggesting we live in a pretty hypocritical country if we can profess our desire for moral leadership and make our number-one smash on television the ABC smut soap "Desperate Housewives." When the red states profess a great concern for moral values and then embrace sleazy shows, that's hypocrisy, is it not?
No. It isn't. That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when you profess belief in the fact that an a group can make an intelligent decision, mention said group has decided for itself a second time, and then go on a rampage to try to change that second decision because you feel it conflicts with the group's best interests.
What, they're right the one time they vote and wrong every single time they choose to turn on the Television and watch a programme for an hour?
Whoever modded this as "interesting" and not "fiction" needs to be shot.
The reason you hear about mothers sensing their children are in danger and saving them and think that somehow there's a correlation has nothing to do with science, it has to do with failure to account for base rates.
Draw a small 2x2 table. Label the columns as follows: "Saves Life" and "Doesn't Save Life / Nothing Wrong". Label the rows: "Mother senses child's life is in danger" "Mother Doesn't Sense Child's life is in danger".
Fill in the table with number of times you've heard about each event.
Want to know where there's a big fat 0? All over the table, except for "Mother Senses Child's in Danger and it is" and "Saves It". You've never heard about the other stuff because it's not interesting news. What kind of news would that be? "Sally senses Baby John is in danger, turns out to be nothing". Or maybe, "Sally very correct her baby is not in danger".
Not accounting for the rest of the table means you've got no way to compare if the thing you're claiming actually occurs more frequently than any other event in the population, like, as you mentioned, the father. Since you have no actual comparisons to draw with the data, it's just, as you say, "anecdote".
It's nothing more than a figment of the people who pick the news.
Second, and I have no idea if I've been trolled, if you've read two articles on a subject expressing the same point of view and you're convinced, that's downright silly. =)
Second, if we take the constitution to be written on the premise that the freedom of the individual to pursue a successful and happy life is essential and any action that limits the freedom of the individual should be illegal or untampered with, we can clearly see why murder, rape, and larceny are illegal (they all infringe on *someone's right* to do the above).
Stem Cell research is a far more iffy issue. Adopting the grounds that religion should not be the way we decide our morality (our country was primarily founded by theists, not christians), it is a *scientific* issue to determine the potential for the cells of an embryo.
Satisfying the religious should not be a prerequisite for conducting scientific research. Religious morality is far different than the law.
I think it ought to be noted that as a scientifically minded religious person, you ought to realize that a) The federal government funds most of the scientific research that goes on in the country and b) that the federal government provides tax relief and funding for religious organizations. You also know (I imagine) that the federal funding ban prohibits stem cell research in any lab which recieves government funding at all, which basically rules out any institutions of higher learning, such as research universities, as well as most hospitals.
You seem to be extremely educated, so I was wondering if you could comment on the strange dichotomy which you seem to support: The idea that your moral values are correct and ought to be supported by the government, and the idea that the moral values inherent in embryonic stem-cell research ought to be cast aside.
Justification with something so simple as "my morals happen to be correct" isn't acceptable. The government either needs to stop making moral issues legal issues. Doing so would have the potential to save thousands of lives.
Shatner explained during an interview that the early transporter shots were done by shooting someone standing still on a glass plate and shooting a blank shot and then adding some colors to the film.
Fade together the blank and the standing still and there's an image of someone appearing from nowhere. =)
Since you've already done lightsabres, this might be fun =)
Much of this is practice and algorithm, just like the people who are expert rubik's cubers.
It's not really all that much different from athletics - there's a certain amount of "natural talent", and then there's a good deal of practice required to actually become a competitive athlete. Muscle memory isn't much different from algorithm memory. I think it might be an interesting psychological study.
I'm a (just about to graduate) college student who had a similar background- I was a computer nerd who spent lots of time online, and now "computer and hardware skills" are one of my best job skills.
If they're going to spend a lot of time on the box, *force* them to learn something new. Switch the computer to linux and make them use it to get to their IM client. Introduce them to HTML or PHP, install the stuff on your own computer and host a small webserver. Do anything to make them learn.
Computer skills are invaluable. If they're going to spend the time online, they should at least be learning something while doing it, since they certainly aren't getting any physical exercise.
Those are representations of the anonymous. This is a representation of a very specific figure who's relatives will have serious emotional attachment.
Specific Person "Herr Joe Thorntonburger" isn't in the WW2 game with a Nazi Family who will mourn his death. President Kennedy has a family which will object to this.
I don't understand how you don't understand the distinction.
On that note, why are you arguing from the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy?
While this is recreation of a historical detail for points, it's also recreation of a murder.
I imagine you would be extremely upset if someone created a videogame reenacting the murder of your sister or brother, asking players to try and mimic as perfectly as possible the trajectory of the bullets that exited your loved one's skull.
This isn't a history role-playing game, this is recreation of an actual murder.
There's definately more wrong than right in this. You should be able to see that.
People with Cable/DSL still have their AOL accounts and use it over Broadband because they don't want to lose their email account, they don't want to lose all the "wonderful" extras that AOL provides, and they don't want to know that they have been getting ripped off for 10 years by using their service.
Education will put AOL to a slow death unless they drastically reform their business to revolve around the things they do get right (like messaging) instead of "access" and "customer support" (both in scare quotes for obvious reasons).
This comment is so wrong on so many levels that it's not even worth explaining.
The only reason people will realize that they've been getting ripped off (as you say) is if they're educated that AOL doesn't actualy provide them anything that the regular old "internet" wouldn't. I'd really appreciate if you would explain on what levels my comment is wrong, since by all indication, it looks as though you've agreed with the main force of the point - AOL Customers are being duped because they're ignorant, and once they realize they can seamlessly change, they will.
On your valid point, that customers don't want to lose their Email address, forwarding/changing contacts isn't really that hard over the course of an entire month.
AOL still has a few more years left in them. Cable and DSL haven't quite become ubiquitous, and there are enough people in the "heartland" who aren't familiar enough with the Internet to know better.
Their new commercials purport to make the Internet better - that's the market AOL has to reach, people who think their software is the Internet.
It doesn't have much longer, though. Education will put AOL to a slow death unless they drastically reform their business to revolve around the things they do get right (like messaging) instead of "access" and "customer support" (both in scare quotes for obvious reasons).
Well, yeah, but what film do you want to see for as cheap as you want to see it?
Many of the films you probably want to see in a theater for their special effects and panoramic vistas and other theater-friendly things cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. On top of that, the actors demand insane fees.
You're right though, movie ticket prices *are* insane, and the best solution that I've found is to wait a month or so before it opens on one of our budget theaters. Also, artsy theaters with independant movies tend to be cheaper and nicer. Try those?
They'll never count your vote if you never go cast one.
No one will listen to your protest abstention - this isn't the floor of the US Senate. For the most part, people will not notice if you don't vote, and you'll live life as normal the next four years. The only person you have to live with is yourself.
Attack the system, criticize the system, but don't remove yourself from the system. The strength of the system is built on educated voters *casting votes*, and slashdoters should definately qualify. The way majority political processes work, change has to come from within. The only way to be part of that change is to be part of the system.
Americans on slashdot should have a political opinion by now, and should be exercising it - pro Kerry, pro Bush, or pro 3rd party.
Science makes falsibiable predictions. Religion does not.
Your argument cannot be proven false, hence, it is not scientific and therefore an incompatible link between science and religion.
Moral of the story: You're either one or the other. Scientists are willing to accept that their arguments are incorrect, Religious folk aren't. There are no conditions under which you'd say, "God couldn't have done this". That's the problem.
Yeah, and no sorts of other learning games, either!
You've obviously not been back into a grade-school classroom in years, where games are played for learning *all* different sorts of materials.
We don't want our kids thinking up insightful solutions, building creativity, learning to deal with competition, or any of the other things Video Games provide.
I'm not saying we should be playing Doom 3 with our third-graders, I'm just saying we ought to be open to the possibility that, yes, there are things you can learn from the computer. Social interaction is *always* good, but the computer is a serious tool of the future that our kids need to be intimately familiar with.
Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
Slavery and Saving Jews were all post-factum addendums to the Civil War and WW2. The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps and SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape.
If you were dead, you wouldn't be glad about your noble sacrifice, you'd be dead.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't see the difference, because, as I pointed out, this has been going on for centuries.
I, Robot certainly *was* an Adaptation, a retelling of an Asimov story on the screen. That doesn't mean it was *good*. But it's an adaptation.
There's no guarrentee or neccessity of faith to the original author. Either the director thought that the adaptation he made was worthy of film for artistic merit, or felt that he read something into the Asimov stories that wasn't explicit on paper, or the point of taking the Asimov stories and putting them on the screen wass that they'll make money when sold to a new audience. None of these are a movie-making sin. Movie making is an industry, and directors, writers, and executives have varied reasons for putting their stuff on the screen.
The point is, audiences enjoyed it. If you enjoy something and someone else enjoys it for a different reason, is that "lack of faith to the original author"? I suppose it depends how deep you read into the author's message of intent, right?
Serious question.
Do you really believe adapation started with Hollywood?
Throughout history, Adaptation has been used to attempt to retell a story to a new audience using a new medium. The Iliad was an adaptation of an orally transmitted poem, parts of which were adapted (and heavily changed!) by Tragedians such as Euripides, parts of which were heavily changed in re-adaptation to epic by later poets (e.g., Vergil), parts of which were heavily changed with translators adaptations.
Even in the stage, Plautus and Terrence (Roman Dramatists) essentially built careers off of re-adapting earlier greek works into new plays. These are hailed as some of the heights of Roman Theater.
"Faith to the Book" is a touch silly when you start talking in terms of historical value or "the author's original wishes". Asimov didn't have hundreds of evil killbots, but modern audiences don't want to watch actors talk about pedantic philosophy for three hours. That doesn't make the base of it any less Asimov's original story. It's an adaptation to the screen.
Adapatation has been going on far longer than hollywood. The version of the story you mentioned in your post is an adaptation. So long as audiences know that they're watching an adaptation - which most of them do - adaptation is a fair and reasonable way to bring interesting stories to a new audience. It's been going on for thousands of years, you're not going to stop it now.
Harry Potter warez?
I mean, that doesn't make any sense, but at least you didn't put "Harry Potter nude", since that would have been really disturbing.
Damn.
I just emailed the guy who did most of the original design and work.
Trust me, it's all in house. There's a lot of stuff in the code that doesn't even make sense.
The entire website is in-house and done with PHP4.
The Original was coded by a recent Graduate, with new improvements being added as time permits.
Okay, I'm biased, since I'm part of the group that runs it, but here at Tufts we have a website called tuftslife.com which is run by students, for students.
Little burden on the administration, who pays hardly anything to run the website (student activities pays hosting), incredible benefits to the student body - at a school of around 5000, we get 4500ish uniques a day.
Everyone uses it to find out what's going on - it was an attempt to create a paperless campus, free from those awful fliers and chalkings everywhere.
Just a suggestion for a suggestion. =)
The anything-goes gang is suggesting we live in a pretty hypocritical country if we can profess our desire for moral leadership and make our number-one smash on television the ABC smut soap "Desperate Housewives." When the red states profess a great concern for moral values and then embrace sleazy shows, that's hypocrisy, is it not?
No. It isn't. That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when you profess belief in the fact that an a group can make an intelligent decision, mention said group has decided for itself a second time, and then go on a rampage to try to change that second decision because you feel it conflicts with the group's best interests.
What, they're right the one time they vote and wrong every single time they choose to turn on the Television and watch a programme for an hour?
Whoever modded this as "interesting" and not "fiction" needs to be shot.
The reason you hear about mothers sensing their children are in danger and saving them and think that somehow there's a correlation has nothing to do with science, it has to do with failure to account for base rates.
Draw a small 2x2 table. Label the columns as follows: "Saves Life" and "Doesn't Save Life / Nothing Wrong". Label the rows: "Mother senses child's life is in danger" "Mother Doesn't Sense Child's life is in danger".
Fill in the table with number of times you've heard about each event.
Want to know where there's a big fat 0? All over the table, except for "Mother Senses Child's in Danger and it is" and "Saves It". You've never heard about the other stuff because it's not interesting news. What kind of news would that be? "Sally senses Baby John is in danger, turns out to be nothing". Or maybe, "Sally very correct her baby is not in danger".
Not accounting for the rest of the table means you've got no way to compare if the thing you're claiming actually occurs more frequently than any other event in the population, like, as you mentioned, the father. Since you have no actual comparisons to draw with the data, it's just, as you say, "anecdote".
It's nothing more than a figment of the people who pick the news.
Second, and I have no idea if I've been trolled, if you've read two articles on a subject expressing the same point of view and you're convinced, that's downright silly. =)
First, yes. "Either" was superfluous.
Second, if we take the constitution to be written on the premise that the freedom of the individual to pursue a successful and happy life is essential and any action that limits the freedom of the individual should be illegal or untampered with, we can clearly see why murder, rape, and larceny are illegal (they all infringe on *someone's right* to do the above).
Stem Cell research is a far more iffy issue. Adopting the grounds that religion should not be the way we decide our morality (our country was primarily founded by theists, not christians), it is a *scientific* issue to determine the potential for the cells of an embryo.
Satisfying the religious should not be a prerequisite for conducting scientific research. Religious morality is far different than the law.
I think it ought to be noted that as a scientifically minded religious person, you ought to realize that a) The federal government funds most of the scientific research that goes on in the country and b) that the federal government provides tax relief and funding for religious organizations. You also know (I imagine) that the federal funding ban prohibits stem cell research in any lab which recieves government funding at all, which basically rules out any institutions of higher learning, such as research universities, as well as most hospitals.
You seem to be extremely educated, so I was wondering if you could comment on the strange dichotomy which you seem to support: The idea that your moral values are correct and ought to be supported by the government, and the idea that the moral values inherent in embryonic stem-cell research ought to be cast aside.
Justification with something so simple as "my morals happen to be correct" isn't acceptable. The government either needs to stop making moral issues legal issues. Doing so would have the potential to save thousands of lives.
Shatner explained during an interview that the early transporter shots were done by shooting someone standing still on a glass plate and shooting a blank shot and then adding some colors to the film.
Fade together the blank and the standing still and there's an image of someone appearing from nowhere. =)
Since you've already done lightsabres, this might be fun =)
Much of this is practice and algorithm, just like the people who are expert rubik's cubers.
It's not really all that much different from athletics - there's a certain amount of "natural talent", and then there's a good deal of practice required to actually become a competitive athlete. Muscle memory isn't much different from algorithm memory. I think it might be an interesting psychological study.
I'm a (just about to graduate) college student who had a similar background- I was a computer nerd who spent lots of time online, and now "computer and hardware skills" are one of my best job skills.
If they're going to spend a lot of time on the box, *force* them to learn something new. Switch the computer to linux and make them use it to get to their IM client. Introduce them to HTML or PHP, install the stuff on your own computer and host a small webserver. Do anything to make them learn.
Computer skills are invaluable. If they're going to spend the time online, they should at least be learning something while doing it, since they certainly aren't getting any physical exercise.
By the way, I think I'm perfectly fine now. =)
For the love of god.
Those are representations of the anonymous. This is a representation of a very specific figure who's relatives will have serious emotional attachment.
Specific Person "Herr Joe Thorntonburger" isn't in the WW2 game with a Nazi Family who will mourn his death. President Kennedy has a family which will object to this.
I don't understand how you don't understand the distinction.
On that note, why are you arguing from the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy?
You're missing the point.
While this is recreation of a historical detail for points, it's also recreation of a murder.
I imagine you would be extremely upset if someone created a videogame reenacting the murder of your sister or brother, asking players to try and mimic as perfectly as possible the trajectory of the bullets that exited your loved one's skull.
This isn't a history role-playing game, this is recreation of an actual murder.
There's definately more wrong than right in this. You should be able to see that.
People with Cable/DSL still have their AOL accounts and use it over Broadband because they don't want to lose their email account, they don't want to lose all the "wonderful" extras that AOL provides, and they don't want to know that they have been getting ripped off for 10 years by using their service.
Education will put AOL to a slow death unless they drastically reform their business to revolve around the things they do get right (like messaging) instead of "access" and "customer support" (both in scare quotes for obvious reasons).
This comment is so wrong on so many levels that it's not even worth explaining.
The only reason people will realize that they've been getting ripped off (as you say) is if they're educated that AOL doesn't actualy provide them anything that the regular old "internet" wouldn't. I'd really appreciate if you would explain on what levels my comment is wrong, since by all indication, it looks as though you've agreed with the main force of the point - AOL Customers are being duped because they're ignorant, and once they realize they can seamlessly change, they will.
On your valid point, that customers don't want to lose their Email address, forwarding/changing contacts isn't really that hard over the course of an entire month.
AOL still has a few more years left in them. Cable and DSL haven't quite become ubiquitous, and there are enough people in the "heartland" who aren't familiar enough with the Internet to know better.
Their new commercials purport to make the Internet better - that's the market AOL has to reach, people who think their software is the Internet.
It doesn't have much longer, though. Education will put AOL to a slow death unless they drastically reform their business to revolve around the things they do get right (like messaging) instead of "access" and "customer support" (both in scare quotes for obvious reasons).
Well, yeah, but what film do you want to see for as cheap as you want to see it?
Many of the films you probably want to see in a theater for their special effects and panoramic vistas and other theater-friendly things cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. On top of that, the actors demand insane fees.
You're right though, movie ticket prices *are* insane, and the best solution that I've found is to wait a month or so before it opens on one of our budget theaters. Also, artsy theaters with independant movies tend to be cheaper and nicer. Try those?
You'd better watch it, that's probably enough evidence for Dunkin Donuts to get it's DMCA lawyers out after you.
Election Day is not a time for Cynicism.
They'll never count your vote if you never go cast one.
No one will listen to your protest abstention - this isn't the floor of the US Senate. For the most part, people will not notice if you don't vote, and you'll live life as normal the next four years. The only person you have to live with is yourself.
Attack the system, criticize the system, but don't remove yourself from the system. The strength of the system is built on educated voters *casting votes*, and slashdoters should definately qualify. The way majority political processes work, change has to come from within. The only way to be part of that change is to be part of the system.
Americans on slashdot should have a political opinion by now, and should be exercising it - pro Kerry, pro Bush, or pro 3rd party.
Science makes falsibiable predictions. Religion does not.
Your argument cannot be proven false, hence, it is not scientific and therefore an incompatible link between science and religion.
Moral of the story: You're either one or the other. Scientists are willing to accept that their arguments are incorrect, Religious folk aren't. There are no conditions under which you'd say, "God couldn't have done this". That's the problem.
I don't know, I'm pretty sure that "power struggle" is first in that sentence.
If you're going to criticize me, read the words first.
The point was, wars are not conducted for moral justification, that justification is added post fact.
Yeah, and no sorts of other learning games, either!
You've obviously not been back into a grade-school classroom in years, where games are played for learning *all* different sorts of materials.
We don't want our kids thinking up insightful solutions, building creativity, learning to deal with competition, or any of the other things Video Games provide.
I'm not saying we should be playing Doom 3 with our third-graders, I'm just saying we ought to be open to the possibility that, yes, there are things you can learn from the computer. Social interaction is *always* good, but the computer is a serious tool of the future that our kids need to be intimately familiar with.
Whatever man.
Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
Slavery and Saving Jews were all post-factum addendums to the Civil War and WW2. The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps and SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape.
If you were dead, you wouldn't be glad about your noble sacrifice, you'd be dead.
My guess is that there will be three ladies painted on the bottom of a pool.
But that's just a guess.