Three paragraphs disappeared from my post, between "1609" and "fine." I know they were there before I hit Submit...
Anyway, those missing paragraphs were about the fact that in my pesonal experience ATI's tweaked Cinemaster DVD decoding software is the best quality out there. It produces a more detailed image with more detailed color than any of the other DVD decoders I've used, and that includes my hardware REALmagic Hollywood+ DVD decoder board. The REALmagic H+, PowerDVD, and WinDVD all produce inferior image quality and color depth. It's doubtful that any Linux DVD software produces a picture as good as that produced by ATI's DVD player, since it is so far superior to even anything else available on Windows and on Windows there are many choices. The only rivals to ATI's DVD software are likely other packages which also use the Cinemaster decoding engine.
And even though ATI's player is region-limited, there are numerous software hacks for it which make it region-free. I have many Region 2 discs, like the copy of *DellaMorte DellAmore* I just watched earlier today. (Mmmmm, Anna Falchi naked in full PAL DVD resolution...) ATI's DVD software isn't the slickest, but it's the best-quality, and uses the ATI cards' excellent iDCT assist to great effect.
At any rate, you can be a dogmatist and refuse to use the best HTPC/PVR hardware and software on principle. That's fine. But I'm a pragmatist who just wants to see his damn movies without any fuss, and I do. To see what's so great about the A-i-W cards for HTPC and PVR enthusiasts, read a few pages of this:
Uh, why not? Because of your OS dogmatism? Sorry, but not liking an OS for philosophical reasons is one thing, and perfectly understandable. But saying it can't be made into an HTPC when it clearly and demonstrably can is ludicrous.
I don't have a dedicated HTPC, but I use my PC for all purposes, including as an HTPC. It uses an All-in-Wonder series card under WindowsXP, and is rock-solid stable. I use it not just for playback of DVD, VCD, DivX, Quicktime, and older video files in a variety of codecs not even explicitly supported by Crossover on Linux, but also for TiVo-like MPEG and MPEG-2 video capture and Guide+ functionality. It flawlessly plays back all these formats on my TV. The fact that it does so using WindowsXP does not disqualify it from performing--well, from performing the dfunctions of a "real" HTPC and many more.
The fact that it runs under WindowsXP is something I consider to be an advantage because it handles old and obscure video formats and codecs which Linux is unlikely to, and new video formats which are likely to have Windows and Mac support long before they have Linux support. That is unfortunate, but it is just the way things are and likely will be for several years to come.
Another great advantage of using WinXP as the basis of a HTPC is that complete, functional, no-command-line-needed playback and recording software is available from a variety of vendors. This is important because, when I finally get around to building a second PC dedicated to HTPC/TiVo functionality, I won't have a keyboard connected to it like I do my present jack-of-all-trades box. A true HTPC should work seamlessly like any other multimedia component, and should therefore be fully controllable by remote. This precludes using many Linux packages, many of which are unusable without keyboard access. In contrast, many companies offer polished Windows software which is easily controlled by remote.
This is especially true of the software that comes with the ATI All-in-Wonder Radeon 8500 series cards--which also come with the best PC remote control ever, which is integrated well with their software. Seriously, nothing exists for Linux which is in the same league as this software and hardware combo. That is unfortunate, but it is a fact. Indeed, nothing else in the Windows world comes close either. But don't take my word for it; see for yourself here:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1609 fine. But I'm a pragmatist who just wants to se his damn movies without any fuss, and I do.
> You have decided canonically that life begins some time after conception, and refuse to believe that anyone > who disagrees with you could be making a rational argument.
Ah, but this is not an opinion born of dogma--it is an opinion born of observation. I have never read a rational argument in support of the theory that life begins at conception. Every one which I've seen is clearly borne from religious belief, not reason. Therefore it is logical to conclude that most people, if not all, who believe life begins at conception believe so from religious fervor not rational thought. Show me a rational argument that life begins at conception. Can you?
> on the contrary, there is a very clear difference between a human embryo and an embryo from another mammal
No, there's not; the difference you site is *not yet present*. But let's get to that point...
> the human embryo, if allowed to develop, will develop into, well, a human.
Yes, *eventually* the embryo will develop differentiating characteristics--but it does not yet have them, and that's the whole point. Your argument is absurd, a logical fallacy--something which *will* possess certain properties at some future point in time, does *not yet* therefore possess them! Can you go to the grocer and buy your food with the money you will have next week? No, because *you don't have it yet*. The embryo *does not yet have* the human features it might have in the future, if certain conditions are met.
That is the whole point of trying to decide when something becomes a human life. Your argument is absurd because it could be applied to anything--semen will become a human life in the future if certain conditions are met; that doesn't mean that semen therefore constitutes a human life and is deserving of the same protection as any human life. It must first mate with an egg, implant in a uterus, grow and differentiate, and undergo many changes before it can make a human life. It is, however, only one step removed in the process from an embryo, which itself must implant in a uterus, grow and differentiate, and undergo many changes before it can make a human life. But we don't call the sperm a human life, because it still has to undergo many steps which may or may not happen. Likewise, we don't call the embryo a human life, because it still has to undergo many steps which may or may not happen. To believe otherwise one must be bringing some sort of religious viewpoint into the equation, since science and reason do not distinguish this embryo as a human life, but merely a very early step in the long process which results in a human life.
> this is just to say that there are more than one way in which conception (the combination of cells into an embryo) > can occur, not that an embryo can be formed without conception at all.
Again, to stretch the definition of conception implies a predefined motive. To quote Webster's: "The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life." While some more recent definitions accord with yours, such as "the union of the sperm and egg to create a zygote," this still does not take into account the method by which adult cells can be used to create a clone embryo, or the methods by which an embryo itself can be cloned. You have predefined goals and are stretching the words and facts to fit them. That is not the scientific and rational way to conduct thought.
> again, one clear example of such a trait is the ability to develop into a complete human, if given a suitable > environment -- a human whose genetic identity is already present in that cell.
That is an irrational argument, because once again you are relying on traits something will have in the future if a certain set of conditions are satisfied--as I pointed out above, a completely irrational and unscientific method, particularly if one is trying to make judgements about the point in time at which something can be considered to qualify as a human life and not just animal life in general. You are essentially saying "it is a human life because one day it will be a human life." Bah. This fallacy is complicated by the fact that we can say what you just said about virtually anything: everything has an "ability to develop into a complete human, if given a suitable environment"--including a sperm, my skin cells, or if the technology were sufficiently advanced (which one day it likely will be) one could assemble a "human" embryo from simple molecular components. That fact that something could become a human life given the right conditions does not mean that it is a human life *now*.
I repeat, there is *no difference* between a human embryo and that of most other mammals, except on the molecular level--aside from a few strands of DNA, present also in a cell from my skin which is not considered a human life in and of itself, a human embryo is identical to that of an ape. There is nothing to physiologically distinguish it. Why is it therefore deserving of the same protections accorded to a human life? Because, one day, maybe, if many different conditions are met, it could become a human life? Irrational piffle.
> you refuse to accept that anyone else could rationally form different opinions
I said before that there are many opinions on this subject which could be based on reason. Yours are not, as I have continually demonstrated. You continually use logical fallacies to "justify" (ineffectually) an opinion which is clearly not based on rational thought.
> you refuse to acknowledge that anyone who disagrees with you could have reached their opinion rationally
That isn't the least bit true. I repeatedly use statements like "that isn't to say any one rationally-based interpretation would be more valuable than another" and the like. I said that my particular interpretation isn't the only one based on reason. What I did say, and stand by, is that the notion that human life begins at conception is a religiously-derived opinion rather than a rational one. There are many reasons, which I have already gone into to some degree, but suffice it to say we can create human embryos by processes other than what we generally call "conception"; therefore it is irrational to say that human life begins at conception, unless you'd consider cloned or otherwise artificially produced embryos to not become human if they grow to term, or unless you wish to revise the definition of conception to include turning an adult human cell into an embryo. The latter of course would make the most sense, but is still almost entirely divorced from current notions of conception or anything which occurs in nature, and therefore to stretch the definition of conception so artificially is clearly not an act which comes from reason, but from a religious fervor.
In addition, it is irrational to say that human life begins at conception because a human embryo is completely indistinguishable from embryos of most other mammals by any means and on any level excpet the molecular. You have to go all the way down to the molecular level and look at tiny strands of DNA, to be able to differentiate between a human emvryo and that of a muskrat--a process which would of course normally destroy the embryo anyway. On every other level it is indistinguishable from any other mammal, and displays no characteristics at all which we associate with humans with the exception that its DNA molecules are human. So are the ones in every cell you scrape off when you scratch your arm--that doesn't make them each human lives.
We can therefore clearly state that just because something is a cell that contains human DNA does not qualify it as a human life. So, what other traits does an embryo have which are uniquely human? None. Again, it is identical to the embryo of almost any other mammal, excepting that it contains human DNA rather than some other kind.
So, if having a few strands of human DNA isn't enough to call a cell a human life, then what is? Again, I can't say with certainty--and no one can--but I'd argue that we have to at least get to the point of cell differentiation before we call it a human life. A five-celled embryo isn't much different in principle than a five-cell clump of my skin--and neither will grow into a human life unless certain conditions are met; in the case of the embryo, it would have to be implanted in a womb, and in the case of my cells they would have to be cloned into embryos and then implanted.
So, it is irrational on many levels to claim that life begins at conception, or even with the undifferentiated embryo stage. When cells start differentiating, human traits start to slowly develop, at which time it is increasingly reasonable to call the foetus a human life.
One could choose many diffeent points for many different reasons to say that "here begins a truly human life." As I said, I would call it a human life only when it develops a nervous system capably of feeling pain, for the pragmatic purpose that by that time the foetus has developed some human characteristics and setting that as the point would prevent a human life from feeling any pain. No harm, no foul, anyway--and if it weren't going to be implanted in a womb in the first place, it would never have grown into a human; therefore, no human would experience pain or have its life aborted if experimentation were done on embryos prior to the stage at which a nervous system capable of feeling pain develops.
Those are all arguments based on reason and science. I have never read a "life begins at conception" argument which can truly say the same.
> you hold to the arrogant claim that `science' backs up your opinion
No, I don't. Rather, like any good scientist, I *base* my opinion on science and reason. That is the difference here. I make observations, and then form my opinions around them. Life, and debate, works better that way.
I refer you first to my other reply in this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33183 These are ethical decisions, not scientific ones.
This depends upon your notion of ethics. One of Webster's definitions for "ethics" is "the science of human duty"--a definition which I like, and which brings us back firmly into the realm of science rather than opinionated notions of morals or religiously-derived beliefs.
Ethics can be considered part of rational philosophy rather than religious philosophy, whereas morals can be considered part of religious philosophy as opposed to rational philosophy. This of course depends upon which definitions one wishes to accept as the basis of argument, but any many philosophy textbooks this is given as a useful differentiation. Ethics therefore deals with how we should best and most productively treat one another as rational human beings. Morality deals with how we should best treat each other given particular religious frameworks. Again, these are not universal definitions, and sometimes "morals" and "ethics" are used interchangeably; but it is a distinction common in philosophy, and useful for our purposes.
The ethics of the situation must therefore be informed by reason and science and rational philosophy, rather than by one's religious beliefs or religiously-based morals. This is especially so since laws must be applied to all, equally, including those with different religious opinions regarding the genesis of human life.
That said, science makes no determinations about when human life begins--but it can tell us so through the observations it gives us as an undifferentiated cell grows into a human baby. The latter is undeniably a human life--the former is most likely not a human life by any rational standard. The rest of my argument is at the other reply linked above.
> I've never heard anyone try to defend lack of pain as being a necessity of life.
Uh, I have no idea what you're talking about. We aren't discussing life; we're discussing *human life*. Living things in general do not have any legal protections, except for animal cruelty laws. Otherwise, we kill living things every day, including complex mammals like the one that used to be the McDonalds' hamburger I ate earlier today. That something is living is entirely irrelevant, therefore.
> So, you cannot argue that a human embryo, is not human life.
I can and do. The question is, is it a *human life* *yet*? If so, one can reasonably argue that it deserves more protection than that unfortunate cow I ate earlier. If not--well, then one can't reasonably argue that it deserves such special protection. That's the issue.
I would argue that the embryo isn't a human life just because it's a human embryo. After all, I can swab clusters of living human cells larger than that one out of my mouth with a q-tip; that doesn't make that particular clump of human cells a human life. I can even keep them and their successor cell lines alive indefinitely, and if I had some very expensive equipment and the expertise to use it, I could even turn those cells into embryos capable of growing into full-fledged autonomous humans through cloning. That still doesn't mean that that bunch of cells is a human life deserving of special legal protections.
If implanted in a uterus and left alone, an embryo will eventually become a human life, that's true. But a single cell from my body could be cloned into an embryo also capable of growing into a human life if left alone in a uterus for a while--which makes it only one step removed from an embryo in terms of the "scale" of what might be considered human life.
But that doesn't mean that either the embryo or my cell that could be turned into an embryo, should be considered a human life. There are a great many steps that need to take place between single-celled embro and fully-formed baby, and it's reasonable to say that the actual human life begins somewhere along that scale. You can make many rational arguments for exactly where to pinpoint the point at which a bunch of cells becomes a ral human life. Embryo is probably the least rational place to pinpoint it, since every mammal starts as a very similar embryo, and a few simple genetic alterations to the single cell of that embryo would yield results that are decidedly not human. Hell, even without genetic alterations, a "stock" human foetus remains physiologically indistinguishable from that of most other mammals for quite some time, even down to the tail.
I reason that the best place to pinpoint where that life becomes a human life would be when the nervous system is fully formed--that is, after all, a key difference between us and other mammals. However, as a "failsafe" to make sure we're not causing a human life any harm, it would be reasonable to make the cut-off point after which no procedures could be performed for experimentation (or abortion, if one is so inclined) that point at which the nervous system is capable of feeling pain, even if the nervous system is not fully formed yet at that point.
Not being a medical doctor with a good background in vertebrate biology myself, I cannot tell you offhand at how many weeks the nervous system is sufficiently developed that it probably feels pain. I can however say with certainty that a clump of undifferentiated cells, whether they be an embryo or something I scratched off my own skin, is completely incapable of feeling pain and therefore tyhere should be no qualms about experimenting with it. Any such qualms are the result of religious opinions, not science, not rational philosophy, and certainly nothing which should be codified into law.
> where do we draw the line? Anywhere we place it, this is a legal and ethical dispute, and need not include theology at all.
That's exactly my point. However, the belief that human life begins at conception and must be protected at that point is an entirely religious or philosophical belief, not a scientific one. Aside from which, again, I pointed out that we can use science to make embryos without what we'd term conception actually taking place--so where does that leave us?
If we want to use science as out touchstone, then we have to use a more concrete standard than *assuming* a few undifferentiated cells constitutes a human life. That isn't to say any one rationally-based interpretation would be more valuable than another, but it is only reasonable in a system of laws supposedly based on post-Enlightenment reason rather than pre-Enlightenment religious morals to use some sort of rational basis for our decisions.
Therefore, why not choose a moment such as when the foetus develops a nervous system likely capable of feeling pain? That would be an entirely reasonable point at which to extend protection, since experimenting on the foetus at that point could cause pain. If it doesn't even have a nervous system developed enough to feel pain, why consider it a human life? What compelling reason is there to do so? None, unless your religion dictates that human life begins at conception. Until that point, using pure reason, we can see that experimenting on the cells causes no harm. Codifying protection for cells which don't even have a nervous system yet into law means pushing religion-based morals on the rest of us with no compelling reason since no one is being protected from demonstrable harm. QED.
> The only issue is whether life begins at conception.
No, that's a red herring. What if there is no conception? What if I turn a cloned adult human cell from a consenting donor into an embryo? Where's the conception? There is none. Where's the unique, new, special human life that the anti-abortion nutsacks want to protect? Not there, because it's the genetic material from a real live consenting human adult that never mixed with that of another person in the process we call conception.
So, what it's really about is what you claim it's not about. It's about people who want to push their religious views on the rest of us by claiming that a bunch of cells isn't just a bunch of cells, but a "human life"--not based on science, or reason, but on opinion. Why is it a human life, when it can't even feel pain since it hasn't even developed a primitive nervous system yet? Why is a five-celled embryo more of a human life than a hundred cells I scratch off my arm without even thinking about it? Because if left alone in a womb it will grow into a human baby? Well, what if it was never, ever in a womb, and was cloned from those hundred cvells I scratched off my arm? And how is that really scientifically any different from an embryo created not by lab cloning but by letting a sperm hit an egg outside a womb? What if we get the egg after it has naturally left the woman's body through menstruation, would that make it okay since that egg was already discarded by God, Nature, the woman, or whatever?
As you see, that's a lot of questions. That's a huge grey area. And yet, to the simplistic anti-abortionists/anti-embryo-researchists, it's black-and-white--because they're motivated by their religious precepts and religious thought, not by rational scientific thought. They are, therefore, pushing their religious ideals on the rest of us, to the detriment of science and the human future.
Here's a religious thought for you, though: instead of thinking human science is going against God's plan, why not embrace it as part of God's plan? Instead of God not wanting us to clone embryos to cure diseases and heal the sick, why not believe that God wants us to, since He let us have that technology? Jesus cured the sick everywhere he went, and then His apostles did--why would He not want us to do the same?
> Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally.
Sure, both the law and society's morality can be against you. But they are *not* one and the same, and modern law *theoretically* doesn't grow out of morality but rather out of the need to protect from harm while preserving rights. There was of course a time when the law was based on religious precepts including the morals of a particular religion, but in Western nations we have outgrown that concept and embraced the acceptance and tolerance of all religions and philosophies, and decided to base our laws on rational notions of human rights and constitutional rights. We made this choice during the Enlightenment, when the need for a seperation of religion and rational thought was posited. Since that point, "faith" and "reason" have been considered different, whereas before "reason" was supposed to be based on "faith". Look what the older notion of basing law on (religious) morality, rather than on rational interpretations of human rights and constitutional rights, has done for most Muslim nations in this day and age.
Our more modern legal system leads to cases which prove that morality and legality are entirely separate memes--although they *usually* intersect since most of us are rooted in a common Judeo-Christian moral heritage which has undoubtedly had an influence on the course of Western rational thought. For example, the recent Supreme Court case striking down laws against "virtual child pornography" struck the majority of Americans as being contrary to morality, and yet it is the law--and rightly, defensably so when you read the thoughts contained in the decision. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to do many things which are immoral--adultery is not illegal in my state, and yet it would be morally wrong on at least two levels for me to fuck my best friend's wife. It's also possible to do something which is illegal but not immoral--it's illegal for someone to give me a copy of DeCSS so that I can take my own DVD copy of *Phantom Menace* and do my own "Phantom Edit" for my personal use, but there's nothing immoral about it.
So, to say that society has the right to dictate what people do based on (religiously-derived) morals, is incorrect. Morality and legality may often intersect, but they are distinct. Society does *not* have the right to enforce morals, only laws. Society can shun you for being immoral, but that's a matter of personal choice on behalf of the people doing the shunning, not a matter of law or fiat. For doing illegal things, however, society can deprive you of life, liberty, or property. They cannot do so if you just do immoral things.
So yes, morality is derived from religion or religious philosophy, and law is derived from reason or rational philosophy. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work in our post-Enlightenment system; unfortunately, some people are too ignorant or too selfish, and want to foist their own moral beliefs on the rest of us.
Nope. None of the graphics big boys have had fully open-source drivers since 3dfx died. *All* have either closed-source drivers, or party-open-source drivers with closed-source modules.
> are you expected to bet that a Windows box (with wonky ATI drivers, no less)
ATI's drivers have improved *immensely* since the old days. I should know, since I was intrepid enough to buy an All-in-Wonder 128 back when it first debuted, when the shipping drivers were *crap*. It was about a year from my purchase date before the updated drivers were stable and fast enough. While ATI's drivers aren't as good as nVidia's, their current drivers are stable and do fine. Now, when they start making a completely revamped core and need truly new drivers nearly from scratch, expect it to take a long time for the drivers to stabilize--BUT, for the current Radeon-derived cores, the drivers are mature and stable.
Not that that really matters, since most of ATI's driver problems were related to OGL, DX, and gaming support. Video capture has always been a different matter, and their A-i-W cards have always been the best of the pack in that respect. What does it matter if a new game has corruption issues or crashes, if all you're doing is video capture on a home-built PVR?
> will stay up until your show comes on?
I'm using an A-i-W on WindowsXP. I crashed a game, once. WinXP has crashed--never. Video capture has worked without issues 100% of the time. If I were using my current box as a PVR, it would be rock-solid stable with no issues whatsoever. The only reason I'm not is that I can't afford a new PC and this one is always too busy.
If your experience with an A-i-W 128 back when the drivers were pathetic has soured you on ATI, fine, but just don't let it cause you to spread FUD. Drivers have improved remarkably, the A-i-W Radeons are fantastic (esp. the 8500DV--a truly impressive card), and video capture performance and software are superior to any other cards unless you want to pony up for a real pro-level $500+ solution (which would be targeted towards pros, not suitable for PVR use).
> Parts of the software is there. the big thing is the lack of a Program guide.
Yes, that's why people use All-in-Wonder cards--built-in Program Guide in the form of Guide+ Gold, the same program guide that comes with many newer TVs. ATI has taken the liberty of making a few mods so that the software works more seamlessly with their recording software. Read this:
There's just no substitute for an All-in-Wonder Radeon or above (the All-in-Wonder 128 doesn't come with all the same software, and isn't upgradeable to all the newest versions) if you're building your own PVR. Once I get the money to build a dedicated PVR, the A-i-W will be key. There's simply nothing on the market in the same league.
Actually, the emphasis on story and scariness made me instantly think of *Clive Barker's Undying*. It was far from a perfect game, but it did put an emphasis on story and visuals and fright that wasn't typically seen in FPS games.
So when I hear that *Doom III* will have a focus on scaring the Hell out of people, I can't say it's a new idea in the FPS world. But I'm sure id Software is going to take it to a new level...
It's looking more and more like the perennial complaints by cosmologists and other physicists and astronomers that there's too much mass in the universe for it all to be accounted by visible galaxies, is holding true.
Yes, the mass of certain neutrinos and other "nearly-massless" particles does figure in, just like we've been theorizing and hearing for a long time. However, we are continually finding more and more of this evidence that there are other sources of mass in dark matter.
It'll be interesting to see the theories on what these "dark matter galaxies" are. Is it some form of dark baryonic matter? Or something else? Quite exotic, either way...
> hasn't there been an IE variant to do this for quite a while?
No, I don't believe so. There *might* be an unofficial "hack" for it, but if so I haven't seen it. You may be thinking of the "tabbed" taskbar buttons in WinXP, which group taskbar buttons of the same app--say, IE--together, to save taskbar real estate. I don't like it myself, and have it disabled.
Tabbed browsing is indeed a great and helpful idea, though, which I've been using in Mozilla builds. I just have always hated needing multiple windows for browsing, especially when they "cascade" and open up in a different position on the desktop, as they do in IE versions above 4. I'm anal and have all my windows for every app set to open up in one particular place in the middle of my desktop, so that multiple instances sometimes cascade themselves and ruin that. Using Mozilla with tabbed browsing solved that problem, at least regarding websurfing, which usually opens multiple windows.
> I don't get it: how is this legislation going to prevent children from chatting online with child molestors?
It's not. It does, however, let the congresspeople say to their sheeple "Look what I'm doing to prevent the big bad Internet from hurting children! No, I don't come to Washington each year just to fondle my interns, use my salary (your tax dollars) to pay for call girls and dinners at Morton's, and erode your freedoms to fit my opinions--I actually pass legislation!"
> Seems to me that this new.kids.us will just be another dead area on the Internet, and that kids will > find it boring (aka - no chatting) and return to the same areas they were surfing before.
Sure, but I can't say I mind that part. If it passes--well, then they have one less thing to complain about when they try to pass CDA-style laws to restrict my freedoms to read and write what I wish on the net. So, I think the kids.us domain would be great--then whenever the need for a "kid-safe" Net is touted by censors, we could say "Fuck no! There's already a kid-safe internet! Remember that kids.us domain you wanted? You got it, it's the 'kid-safe Internet' you wanted, so shut the Hell up." Or something like that.
See, I see the potential for kids.us to be used *by our side* to defeat the censors' rationales for stepping on our rights. It's an opt-in system--people can get such a domain if they intend to appeal to kids and are willing to abide by whatever content restrictions Congress wants to impose on that subdomain. If you want to *not* abide by such restrictions, just don't get a silly kids.us address, get a.com or.net or.us. Participation is entirely voluntary both for site-ops and for parents. The way I see it, it gives their side very little since kids will always be able to find an "unhindered" Net connection somewhere, and gives our side a lot since it takes away one of the censors' big arguments. I like the potential.
As for the bill making it easier to wiretap people "suspected of engaging in child pornography, of trying to get children to perform sexual acts for money or of traveling to or bringing children for sexual activity"--I object to this because it's *already* embarrassingly easy to get a wiretap warrant, to the point of being a joke. Some judges--and the police and FBI know exactly which ones to go to--will give a wiretap warrant the minute the prosecutor says "child(ren)." No showing of cause needed. So, making it esier is in no way necessaqry, nor welcome. Kids.us isn't much of a threat or violation of my rights. However, a bill letting police excuse an invasion into my privacy by merely saying "we suspcted him of child porn/abuse/talking mean to a child online," without any evidence or cause whatsoever--well, that's a violation. If you want to invade someone's privacy and wiretap all their communications, sorry, but you should have to show cause.
What I really find laughable though is that the people pushing this legislation with the excuse of this girl in Connecticutt who was murdered clearly had it drafted and were just opportunistically, predatorily waiting around for a child to die at the hands of an adult she met online. Talk about being predators--that's what the bill's authors are, using the death of a child for their own gain. Sickening.
Not to mention the fact that this girl who was murdered wasn't the innocent poster-child she's being made out to be. In reality, that particular girl had been meeting and having sex with strange men she met on the Internet for some time, and had been bragging about her sex life to her classmates. It was only a matter of time before she met one who's a killer as well as a child molester. A sad story, indeed, but not one of an innocent child lured by the Big Bad Internet--rather, of a child who'd already been corrupted, probably by past offline abuse or neglect, who turned to the Internet to find adult sexual partners and bragged about it to her classmates. Something was definitely very wrong in her life, but her unfortunate use of chatrooms was a symptom of it, not the cause of it.
The real predators are our Congressmen. To use a child's death for political gain is disgusting, and the congressmen who introduced these bills are as predatory as the child molester who killed her.
You know, I'm not kidding when I say that I accidentally read that line:
"Tell that to Disney."
It's really sad when when people have started to subconsciously associate wholesale abuse of the law and the public with the company which brought us Mickey Mouse and DisneyWorld. Wow. I guess the real question becomes--what have they done for us lately, versus what have they taken from us lately?
Draconian copyright laws designed solely to keep Mickey from becoming public property like he would have years ago, and to keep their artificial-scarcity DVD racket going. The shredding of tons of documentation to prevent the family of Pooh's copyright licensor from proving that they weren't given their contractual percentage of the incredible sales. Some "family" company it's become, eh Walt?
> It is my understanding that for some time, feature films have edited digitally. Not like they digitized > it, came up with an EDL, the used the EDL to cut the film, but rather that they digitize it, edit it, the > print back to film.
No, it is not the standard practise to digitize the film and then edit the digital copy and then print it back to 35mm. This has been done, but is not the norm last time I looked, being reserved for almost-all-digital-effects films. Most films will thankfully never fit this bill, focusing on story content rather than special effects--Ithink this has been Lucas' downfall with his prequels; he focuses on the digital effects to the detriment of the dialogue, acting, and all the rest that goes into a great film.
Aside from which, film can be digitized at a higher resolution than current digital cameras can capture, since specialty equipment has been developed for years to do just that.
> I don't know what exactly was done for star wars.
*AotC* was filmed with a special digital camera made by Sony especially for George Lucas--state of the digital art. Then the rendered scenes and characters and the digital film of the live actors were all edited together and then special effects where the live actors interact with the digital characters and scenery were added to that. The resulting "masters" are completely digital, and have been at every step of the process; IIRC the "masters" of *AotC* and *PM* are digitally preserved across a bunch of magneto-optical, optical, and magnetic media, redundantly, for posterity.
> But a lot of digital work isn't done at the highest quality possible.
Absolutely true. To cut costs, rendering is typically done at only a quarter or a half of film's full resolution. The result is usually not noticeably inferior, since that's still a decenmt resolution and if done well will look good even when printed back to 35mm. However, there are many exceptions--like Gladiator. Its digital elements, like the Coliseum background and its digital audience, looked very poor to people with a discerning eye when projected at theaters--muddy, indistinct, undersaturated, and not matching up seamlessly with the action in the foreground. It was all the more noticeable in the action sequences which were shot deliberately at a lower FPS (I think offhand 18fps) in order to produce that famous "tearing" effect during some fight sequences. And, a lot of films with lower-quality digital effects just look *awful* when projected onto a really huge theater screen, even if the effects were done really well and would have looked pristine on a smaller theater screen like you find at your average multiplex.
At any rate, yeah, digital effects are typically done at far less than full 35mm resolution. It makes me long for the days of special effects artists who'd spend weeks on a single detailed model... Today, the same effect is usually done digitally, with the loss of a "real" object and its associated weight and presence. Digital characters and effects often look less realistic precisely because they lack weight and mass, or don't seem to be effected by gravity, or other things which would just "be there" if they were being done with highly detailed real-world special effects artists at the helm instead of CGI artists.
> I think that film is a much more flexible medium for the forseable future, but most people don't work in a way to take advantage of it.
You're right in general terms. A whole lot of movies are using lower-res digital effects, or not using their 35mm capabilities to their utmost. But then again, I think we have to look to those few films that really do transcend anything digital has to offer today. Look at a truly great, well-shot film like *American Beauty*. Its cinematographer has had 50 years of experience behind a 35mm camera, and it shows--no scene is shot poorly, the lighting is so perfect as to generally not be noticed, and the effects that different film stocks and camera settings have have been used to great advantage. Digital (except of course in the scenes where a consumer-level DVcam was used to show the kids' use of that camera) would never have produced that richness and texture--things would have looked, well, more ordinary. In addition, while digital special effects had to be used for some scenes for obvious reason--the rose petals flying from Mena Suvari's chest, e.g.--most things were done with good old-fashioned "real" effects. The scene in the steamy bathroom between Spacey and Suvari, for example, used real steam and real lighting effects. Theoretically, digital effects could have been used to produce steamy fog and lighting effects--but it ouldn't have looked so real and so striking as when done with the real thing.
Let's also not forget that film just has a "look" of its own, distinct from either digital processes or "real life." That look of film is what we're more or less used to seeing on the big screen and even on the small screen when it comes to movies. It's stylized in a soft, "natural" way, due in great measure to the lighting required when working with film. Digital film seems to me more harsh and less forgiving, showing off every blemish and making things look like harsh reality rather than the escapism of a film. This can be used to great effect, as in the boot-camp war movie *Tigerland*, which was shot on digital and looks the better for it because the harshness and "reality look" of digital matches the harshness and eality of the situation. But in most cases, that "harsh" look would be far less welcome. Even George Lucas has gone to great lengths to make his digital movies "look" like they were shot on film. Ironic.
> Starwars would have been one film that should have though.
I do miss the old *Star Wars* movies. First off, because as much attention was paid to dialogue and character development and acting as was paid to the special effects. I think this is Lucas' biggest problem with his latest films. But I also miss that the special effects were "real," done with very elaborateloy detailed life-size models of aliens and real people inside costumes--because they have a weight and real presence, and little unintentional movements which make them look natural and real. You don't get unintentional movements with digital effcts, and consequently they often look unrealistic, and they always lack realistic responses to gravity since weight is very complex and doesn't usually figure into digital effects yet except as a "guesstimate" by some animators. Before digital effects can look realistic, gravity and mass will have to be accurately modelled for digital elements instead of guessed at by an animator.
What you noticed is actually the *opposite* of what is generally the case regarding *AotC*. Mo0st likely, if the digital projections looked worse in some way--more blurry, less saturated, etc.--than the film projections, then this is entirely the fault of the digital projector or some other element in the theater being set wrong. It's probably that the digital projector's settings were not all adjusted optimally, since the tech is so new. Hell, my local multiplex often sets their standard film projctors sub-optimally, and that tech is ancient...
The fact is, assuming the digital projector is set up correctly, *AotC* will look better on a digital screen because it is an entirely digital movie. The masters are digital, and when you see a digitally projected version, it should be as pristine as the masters (or nearly so, if resolution has to be adjusted). If you see a standard 35mm print of the film, you're seeing a digital->analogue conversion which willn not be as crisp and vibrant.
This is not true of showing most films, though, because most are primarily shot on film and not digital--even films with a lot of digital effects everywhere are generally primarily film. This has the advantage that a 35mm print has a far superior resolution than even the special custom digital camera which Sony made for George Lucas to shoot his digital movies with. 35mm film also has much greater sensitivity to a broader spectrum of colors than current digital cameras will allow--50 years of development on the color film stock front has produced some amazing things. So, while there is generational loss in th analogue->analogue transfer from master to new print, it hardly matters since the resolution is so vastly greater than the resolution of digital, and since the color spectrum is wider than current digital video camera sensitivities. This is why people like film critic Roger Ebert, and even me, can't stand digital projection for 35mm movies--even with my 20/100 vision, I can see the inferior resolution and color saturation of a film that was intended for 35mm when it's projected digitally on a very big screen.
So, naturally, it would seem that all-digital films like the new *SW* movies and digital animation like *Shrek* should best be viewed on digital projectors, while movies which are primarily 35mm are bet viewed on a traditional 35mm projector. And the fact is, until digital technology makes resolutions and color spectra approaching that of 35mm film possible both on the shooting and the projecting ends, I don't believe digital should be adopted as the standard.
Don't get me wrong--the time will come to go digital. But until its resolutions and color sensitivities can truly rival 35mm, that time is not now.
As an aside, here's film critic Roger Ebert's take--he's an outspoken critic of current digital projection for films shot on 35mm, but he shows an even-handedness when it comes to allowing that digital films naturally look better on digital projectors: http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr- star15.html http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/0 5/051001.html
The fact is, except for all-digital special effects films like the *SW* movies, the current push for digital is coming out of economic penny-pinching rather than better quality. There was a time when Hollywood was interested in greater quality and experimented with impressive 70mm filmstocks and 48fps speed. 35mm and 24fps stuck around because it's cheaper, albeit less visually stunning. And now digital, which has 1/5 to 1/7 the resolution and less color sensitivity at the moment, is chomping at the bit. For all-digital special effects flicks likw *SW* and *Shrek*, naturally it makes sense since rendering isn't yet done at very high resolutions (compred to 35mm). For other films, it doesn't, especially when projected on a rally impressive screen where the resolution, saturation, and intensity will be exposed for their inferiority.
Windows is certainly not the "best" gaming platform ever in terms of tech--hell, I even hung my WinXP the other day playing a game; let alone how many times I hang 98lite which is my primary gaming platform. However, it *is* the computer gaming platform with the largest number of quality released games available, and likely always will be thanks to the sheer numbers of quality legacy games out there that will never be ported to anything else.
Geeks love gaming. A lot of them may wish that all the greatest games came out for Linux too, but that's simply never going to happen--realistically, some of the best games will always be "bought" or developed by Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, or developers in an "exclusive relationship" with them. Consequently, as closed and proprietary as most consoles are, a lot of geeks will buy them. Likewise, as proprietary as Windows is, a lot of geeks will always keep a Win partition or gaming box. One can still dislike the reality while acknowledging it.
I for one will always have Windows for gaming. Even if every new title were to start shipping with Linux support, that wouldn't replace my library of great and classic titles which are Windows-only What I'd really like is to be able to run all my games under one single unified platform--a pipe dream, even with emulators getting more numerous and better. No version of Wine is ever likely to run all of our favorite PC games, unless by some miracle the Win9x source is opened--yeah, maybe in 50 years.Likewise, it will be a very, very long time until we can play *Luigi's Mansion* under a Gamecube emulator for our computers. So, until those days come, there is no hypocrisy in using Windows or another closed platform for gaming--just as I can advocate better and more humane treatment for cows and other animals while not completely denying myself meat; just as I can be a proponent of alternative fuel systems to replace current oil-based systems, without having to walk everywhere.
Aside from which, if every Linux-using geek in the world never bought another Windows game again, it wouldn't make a dent in the sales figures. Almost all games are targeted, naturally, at a more general audience than "Linux evangelists, ages 12-36." What can be useful is buying the Linux versions of games that will have Linux versions--that way voices get heard, and game developers get encouraged to port to Linux. Not buying Windows-only games will not, however, encourage porting to Linux, since most end-users use Windows and a boycott by Linux users will be statistically insignificant.
Not that it matters, anyway, because I think NWN will have a Linux verion anyway if I'm not mistaken. So, go buy the Linux port when it comes out and stop whining. If I misread and a Linux port isn't planned, then write and politely ask for one, and enough letters may convince them.
In any event, stop trolling and go to bed. No soup for you!
> Then it's really a shame that your elected republican representatives are voting "pro-life".
That's the most ill-informed FUD I've ever heard. The Republicans had control of the House and Senate for quite some time, and how many bills to outlaw abortion did they pass? None.:-) How many restrictions did they try to pass? Parental consent for minors to get abortions. That isn't a bad idea, since most people would want their 15 year old daughters to talk to them about abortions before getting one.
We pay lip service to the Christian extremists to get their votes. In return, we give them almost nothing.
Oh, and guess who wrote the Roe v. Wade decision? A Nixon appointee. Guess who's been the deciding vote on most of the close Supreme Court decisions that have stricken down oppressive laws like CPPA? Thomas, a Bush appointee. And many of the Reagan appointees uphold our civil liberties better than Clinton appointees like that annoying liberal bitch I don't even want to name because she votes so often for government intrusion in our lives that I can't stand her.
Republicans are protectors of our liberties. Democrats are just too stupid to realize it. The ideal government is a balance between the two, since Republicans have anti-civil-liberties stands on some issues, and Democrats have anti-civil-liberties stands on others. So to preserve the most civil liberties, we need deadlock.:-)
> Why is it that no historian knew about this plant until after Roe v. Wade?
The knowledge was certainly there, but let's be frank: no one even considered such mundane matters "history" until relatively recently, about the last 30 years or so. History in general has been about the great sweeping forces of politics, war, and the lives of the wealthy or powerful. Only lately have we cared about finding out how people conducted their daily lives--particularly how women conducted their daily lives.
But certainly knowledge of silphium and other herbal abortificants has *always* been there. The writings of ancient physicians such as Dioskorides and Galen mention silphium, sometimes in depth--giving dosages, methods of preparation, etc. And indeed, in many parts of the world herbal preparations of other ferula varieties or other herbs such as rue are to this day used to induce abortions for unwanted pregnancies, as has always been the case. Some may not like it, but abortions are natural in that since prehistory certain herbs have been used to intentionally cause abortion. It's only in the Christian era that knowledge of how to induce abortions was suppressed.
The plant was Ferula historica, also called silphium or sylphion, and sometimes known as "giant fennel." It was taken in very low doses as a contraceptive, and in larger doses following pregnancy to induce abortions. By all accounts it worked with 100% effectiveness at inducing abortions, and it probably worked about as effectively as our modern "pill" does at preventing pregnancies.
It was so sought after, yet so hard to cultivate, that it was extinct by about the third century. This is a great loss, since Silphium's effectiveness rivaled that of modern equivalents, and its widespread use indicated that it *probably* didn't have too many unwanted side effects. I can only imagine how popular an herbal contraceptive as effective as the pill would be.
Here are a few links:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/13_2%20B ir th%20Control%20in%20Antiquity.htm
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/contra1.h tm l
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1993/04.04.08.htm l
http://ancient-coins.com/articles/silphium/silph iu m2.htm
http://www.populationaction.org/resources/public at ions/naturesplace/np_sylphion.shtml
I'd been a customer of a local ISP for about five years. During that time, they were bought up by a larger regional ISP, which was then bought up by an even larger one.
I'd been happy with my service. $9.95 a month, only very rare connection problems or time-outs. But hey--it was finally time for cable! Yum, more pr0n, faster.
So, I called the ISP at the local office I'd signed up at year ago. They wanted to know what my username and password were, and what my bank card number was--I'd had direct billing. So, I gave it all to them--but wait, the bank card number wasn't right. Just a moment, I said; there's a second card since it's a joint account, and I might have signed up with that other number. But no, that number didn't match either. Oops, I remembered--a couple months earlier my bank sent out replacement cards, with instructions to destroy the older ones. Hmmm. I'd signed up with a bank card number I no longer had.
So, they said they couldn't help me cancel "for security purposes" without the card number. But, I have the password? Nope, it doesn't matter because the password could have been shared with a third party. But wait, isn't that against your TOS? Umm, yes, but it doesn't matter I still can't cancel your account.
So, supervisor time. Same song and dance. No disconnection.
That's when I called the company which had bought the old local company, and went through a similar song and dance. No luck.
So, I called the bank, which said they couldn't stop payment on any debit card withdrawals unless I come in and sign some forms. I'd hate to waste more of my day...
So, I finally called the larger ISP which had bought the regional ISP which had bought the local ISP.:-) Apparently they don't get many calls, since almost everyone deals directly with their more local subsidiaries, even though everyone's billing goes directly to this entity. I got right through, no holding, unlike the hour or so I'd wasted on hold at the smaller subsidiaries. I told the woman who answered that I'd like to cancel my account; she asked my name and address and account name, and then said I was cancelled. She didn't even ask for my password, much less my credit card number for verification. I was floored--and relieved.
Of course, I had a friend who was not so lucky at getting his desired cancellation. He couldn't get it done, no matter what he said--I don't remember what he no longer had that they needed for verification. I do, however, remember how he finally got his desired account cancellation: he e-mailed the sysadmin listed on the ISP's site, and said something like "Your billing department refuses to cancel my account. Well, I'm e-mailing you from the address associated with my account, to tell you that if you don't cancel my service immediately, I will post my dialup username and password and POP server information to several websites and newsgroups frequented by spammers and hackers, so that they can use my account for whatever they want until you cancel it yourself for TOS violations. I apologize, but this is my last recourse. I'm giving my account details to spammers and hackers in two days, unless my account is cancelled by then."
> Many of the pro-lifers(republicans) are in favor of stopping all forms of birth control
Don't even make the mistake of thinking "pro-life=Republican". I am a Republican because it's the (major) party which in general wants to keep government out of our lives the most. I am, however, pro-abortion, as are many Republicans. Just beause the extremists are more vocal does not mean that they represent the views of all of us.
> you still have thousands of abortions a day to justify. So, this sidebar is a red herring.
No, not at all. You see, the exception proves that rule is incorrect.:-) Use some logic, my friend.
> Control your body. Your baby, however, is not part of your body.
Good, then it should be acceptable to remove that baby from the woman's body if that's the woman's choice, and let the fetus get along on its own. Let's remove it in one piece, by inducing premature expulsion of the fetus, so that we can't be said to be directly killing that fetus. It'll die, of course, if it's expelled from the host body early enough--but we haven't killed it directly, it died of its own accord because it lacked self-sufficiency. Would that be acceptable tou you? No? Then you don't *really* believe that women should have control over their own bodies, you only like to say you do.
> But who did the forcing? The aggressor who committed the crime. They should be held permanently > accountable, and forced to provide financially for that child. Killing the child solves nothing.
A statistically significant percentage of rapists are never found and convicted. What then? Then is it acceptable to remove the fetus? And what if he is found--who's going to have to be burdened with the care of the child for the next 18 years, him? No? The woman, of course. Even if she gives it up for adoption, she will have been forced to endure the humiliation and pain of carrying a rapists unwanted child for nine months of her life, definitely interrupting it and her future, possibly destroying her chances for college or career advancement, and making her subject to health problems and permanent body changes. That is unacceptable and inhuman, and you clearly lack in compassion and understanding if you would force a woman to endure that. Even worse, what if this woman is a high-school girl whose youth will be taken away because you're forcing her to bear a rapist's baby? Yes, children have become pregnant from rape before. Your arguments are blunt and ill-conceived. Worse, you're a very bad person for wanting to push your own religiously-based notions on others, even when they would cause those people pain and degradation.
You are just a very selfish moralist, pushing his own religious agenda on the rest of the world no matter who is harmed. At least my opinion gives rights to people who are clearly and provably human beings. Yours takes those rights away from people who are clearly and provably human beings, in order to give them to unborn fetuses which are only debatably human beings, and not provably so. My stance is, therefore, clearly the logical one.
Slashdot Mirror
Three paragraphs disappeared from my post, between "1609" and "fine." I know they were there before I hit Submit...
1 5
Anyway, those missing paragraphs were about the fact that in my pesonal experience ATI's tweaked Cinemaster DVD decoding software is the best quality out there. It produces a more detailed image with more detailed color than any of the other DVD decoders I've used, and that includes my hardware REALmagic Hollywood+ DVD decoder board. The REALmagic H+, PowerDVD, and WinDVD all produce inferior image quality and color depth. It's doubtful that any Linux DVD software produces a picture as good as that produced by ATI's DVD player, since it is so far superior to even anything else available on Windows and on Windows there are many choices. The only rivals to ATI's DVD software are likely other packages which also use the Cinemaster decoding engine.
And even though ATI's player is region-limited, there are numerous software hacks for it which make it region-free. I have many Region 2 discs, like the copy of *DellaMorte DellAmore* I just watched earlier today. (Mmmmm, Anna Falchi naked in full PAL DVD resolution...) ATI's DVD software isn't the slickest, but it's the best-quality, and uses the ATI cards' excellent iDCT assist to great effect.
At any rate, you can be a dogmatist and refuse to use the best HTPC/PVR hardware and software on principle. That's fine. But I'm a pragmatist who just wants to see his damn movies without any fuss, and I do. To see what's so great about the A-i-W cards for HTPC and PVR enthusiasts, read a few pages of this:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1609&p=
> IMHO, a Windows based PC is *not* a real HTPC
Uh, why not? Because of your OS dogmatism? Sorry, but not liking an OS for philosophical reasons is one thing, and perfectly understandable. But saying it can't be made into an HTPC when it clearly and demonstrably can is ludicrous.
I don't have a dedicated HTPC, but I use my PC for all purposes, including as an HTPC. It uses an All-in-Wonder series card under WindowsXP, and is rock-solid stable. I use it not just for playback of DVD, VCD, DivX, Quicktime, and older video files in a variety of codecs not even explicitly supported by Crossover on Linux, but also for TiVo-like MPEG and MPEG-2 video capture and Guide+ functionality. It flawlessly plays back all these formats on my TV. The fact that it does so using WindowsXP does not disqualify it from performing--well, from performing the dfunctions of a "real" HTPC and many more.
The fact that it runs under WindowsXP is something I consider to be an advantage because it handles old and obscure video formats and codecs which Linux is unlikely to, and new video formats which are likely to have Windows and Mac support long before they have Linux support. That is unfortunate, but it is just the way things are and likely will be for several years to come.
Another great advantage of using WinXP as the basis of a HTPC is that complete, functional, no-command-line-needed playback and recording software is available from a variety of vendors. This is important because, when I finally get around to building a second PC dedicated to HTPC/TiVo functionality, I won't have a keyboard connected to it like I do my present jack-of-all-trades box. A true HTPC should work seamlessly like any other multimedia component, and should therefore be fully controllable by remote. This precludes using many Linux packages, many of which are unusable without keyboard access. In contrast, many companies offer polished Windows software which is easily controlled by remote.
This is especially true of the software that comes with the ATI All-in-Wonder Radeon 8500 series cards--which also come with the best PC remote control ever, which is integrated well with their software. Seriously, nothing exists for Linux which is in the same league as this software and hardware combo. That is unfortunate, but it is a fact. Indeed, nothing else in the Windows world comes close either. But don't take my word for it; see for yourself here:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1609 fine. But I'm a pragmatist who just wants to se his damn movies without any fuss, and I do.
> You have decided canonically that life begins some time after conception, and refuse to believe that anyone
> who disagrees with you could be making a rational argument.
Ah, but this is not an opinion born of dogma--it is an opinion born of observation. I have never read a rational argument in support of the theory that life begins at conception. Every one which I've seen is clearly borne from religious belief, not reason. Therefore it is logical to conclude that most people, if not all, who believe life begins at conception believe so from religious fervor not rational thought. Show me a rational argument that life begins at conception. Can you?
> on the contrary, there is a very clear difference between a human embryo and an embryo from another mammal
No, there's not; the difference you site is *not yet present*. But let's get to that point...
> the human embryo, if allowed to develop, will develop into, well, a human.
Yes, *eventually* the embryo will develop differentiating characteristics--but it does not yet have them, and that's the whole point. Your argument is absurd, a logical fallacy--something which *will* possess certain properties at some future point in time, does *not yet* therefore possess them! Can you go to the grocer and buy your food with the money you will have next week? No, because *you don't have it yet*. The embryo *does not yet have* the human features it might have in the future, if certain conditions are met.
That is the whole point of trying to decide when something becomes a human life. Your argument is absurd because it could be applied to anything--semen will become a human life in the future if certain conditions are met; that doesn't mean that semen therefore constitutes a human life and is deserving of the same protection as any human life. It must first mate with an egg, implant in a uterus, grow and differentiate, and undergo many changes before it can make a human life. It is, however, only one step removed in the process from an embryo, which itself must implant in a uterus, grow and differentiate, and undergo many changes before it can make a human life. But we don't call the sperm a human life, because it still has to undergo many steps which may or may not happen. Likewise, we don't call the embryo a human life, because it still has to undergo many steps which may or may not happen. To believe otherwise one must be bringing some sort of religious viewpoint into the equation, since science and reason do not distinguish this embryo as a human life, but merely a very early step in the long process which results in a human life.
> this is just to say that there are more than one way in which conception (the combination of cells into an embryo)
> can occur, not that an embryo can be formed without conception at all.
Again, to stretch the definition of conception implies a predefined motive. To quote Webster's: "The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life." While some more recent definitions accord with yours, such as "the union of the sperm and egg to create a zygote," this still does not take into account the method by which adult cells can be used to create a clone embryo, or the methods by which an embryo itself can be cloned. You have predefined goals and are stretching the words and facts to fit them. That is not the scientific and rational way to conduct thought.
> again, one clear example of such a trait is the ability to develop into a complete human, if given a suitable
> environment -- a human whose genetic identity is already present in that cell.
That is an irrational argument, because once again you are relying on traits something will have in the future if a certain set of conditions are satisfied--as I pointed out above, a completely irrational and unscientific method, particularly if one is trying to make judgements about the point in time at which something can be considered to qualify as a human life and not just animal life in general. You are essentially saying "it is a human life because one day it will be a human life." Bah. This fallacy is complicated by the fact that we can say what you just said about virtually anything: everything has an "ability to develop into a complete human, if given a suitable environment"--including a sperm, my skin cells, or if the technology were sufficiently advanced (which one day it likely will be) one could assemble a "human" embryo from simple molecular components. That fact that something could become a human life given the right conditions does not mean that it is a human life *now*.
I repeat, there is *no difference* between a human embryo and that of most other mammals, except on the molecular level--aside from a few strands of DNA, present also in a cell from my skin which is not considered a human life in and of itself, a human embryo is identical to that of an ape. There is nothing to physiologically distinguish it. Why is it therefore deserving of the same protections accorded to a human life? Because, one day, maybe, if many different conditions are met, it could become a human life? Irrational piffle.
> you refuse to accept that anyone else could rationally form different opinions
I said before that there are many opinions on this subject which could be based on reason. Yours are not, as I have continually demonstrated. You continually use logical fallacies to "justify" (ineffectually) an opinion which is clearly not based on rational thought.
> you refuse to acknowledge that anyone who disagrees with you could have reached their opinion rationally
That isn't the least bit true. I repeatedly use statements like "that isn't to say any one rationally-based interpretation would be more valuable than another" and the like. I said that my particular interpretation isn't the only one based on reason. What I did say, and stand by, is that the notion that human life begins at conception is a religiously-derived opinion rather than a rational one. There are many reasons, which I have already gone into to some degree, but suffice it to say we can create human embryos by processes other than what we generally call "conception"; therefore it is irrational to say that human life begins at conception, unless you'd consider cloned or otherwise artificially produced embryos to not become human if they grow to term, or unless you wish to revise the definition of conception to include turning an adult human cell into an embryo. The latter of course would make the most sense, but is still almost entirely divorced from current notions of conception or anything which occurs in nature, and therefore to stretch the definition of conception so artificially is clearly not an act which comes from reason, but from a religious fervor.
In addition, it is irrational to say that human life begins at conception because a human embryo is completely indistinguishable from embryos of most other mammals by any means and on any level excpet the molecular. You have to go all the way down to the molecular level and look at tiny strands of DNA, to be able to differentiate between a human emvryo and that of a muskrat--a process which would of course normally destroy the embryo anyway. On every other level it is indistinguishable from any other mammal, and displays no characteristics at all which we associate with humans with the exception that its DNA molecules are human. So are the ones in every cell you scrape off when you scratch your arm--that doesn't make them each human lives.
We can therefore clearly state that just because something is a cell that contains human DNA does not qualify it as a human life. So, what other traits does an embryo have which are uniquely human? None. Again, it is identical to the embryo of almost any other mammal, excepting that it contains human DNA rather than some other kind.
So, if having a few strands of human DNA isn't enough to call a cell a human life, then what is? Again, I can't say with certainty--and no one can--but I'd argue that we have to at least get to the point of cell differentiation before we call it a human life. A five-celled embryo isn't much different in principle than a five-cell clump of my skin--and neither will grow into a human life unless certain conditions are met; in the case of the embryo, it would have to be implanted in a womb, and in the case of my cells they would have to be cloned into embryos and then implanted.
So, it is irrational on many levels to claim that life begins at conception, or even with the undifferentiated embryo stage. When cells start differentiating, human traits start to slowly develop, at which time it is increasingly reasonable to call the foetus a human life.
One could choose many diffeent points for many different reasons to say that "here begins a truly human life." As I said, I would call it a human life only when it develops a nervous system capably of feeling pain, for the pragmatic purpose that by that time the foetus has developed some human characteristics and setting that as the point would prevent a human life from feeling any pain. No harm, no foul, anyway--and if it weren't going to be implanted in a womb in the first place, it would never have grown into a human; therefore, no human would experience pain or have its life aborted if experimentation were done on embryos prior to the stage at which a nervous system capable of feeling pain develops.
Those are all arguments based on reason and science. I have never read a "life begins at conception" argument which can truly say the same.
> you hold to the arrogant claim that `science' backs up your opinion
No, I don't. Rather, like any good scientist, I *base* my opinion on science and reason. That is the difference here. I make observations, and then form my opinions around them. Life, and debate, works better that way.
I refer you first to my other reply in this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33183 These are ethical decisions, not scientific ones.
This depends upon your notion of ethics. One of Webster's definitions for "ethics" is "the science of human duty"--a definition which I like, and which brings us back firmly into the realm of science rather than opinionated notions of morals or religiously-derived beliefs.
Ethics can be considered part of rational philosophy rather than religious philosophy, whereas morals can be considered part of religious philosophy as opposed to rational philosophy. This of course depends upon which definitions one wishes to accept as the basis of argument, but any many philosophy textbooks this is given as a useful differentiation. Ethics therefore deals with how we should best and most productively treat one another as rational human beings. Morality deals with how we should best treat each other given particular religious frameworks. Again, these are not universal definitions, and sometimes "morals" and "ethics" are used interchangeably; but it is a distinction common in philosophy, and useful for our purposes.
The ethics of the situation must therefore be informed by reason and science and rational philosophy, rather than by one's religious beliefs or religiously-based morals. This is especially so since laws must be applied to all, equally, including those with different religious opinions regarding the genesis of human life.
That said, science makes no determinations about when human life begins--but it can tell us so through the observations it gives us as an undifferentiated cell grows into a human baby. The latter is undeniably a human life--the former is most likely not a human life by any rational standard. The rest of my argument is at the other reply linked above.
> I've never heard anyone try to defend lack of pain as being a necessity of life.
Uh, I have no idea what you're talking about. We aren't discussing life; we're discussing *human life*. Living things in general do not have any legal protections, except for animal cruelty laws. Otherwise, we kill living things every day, including complex mammals like the one that used to be the McDonalds' hamburger I ate earlier today. That something is living is entirely irrelevant, therefore.
> So, you cannot argue that a human embryo, is not human life.
I can and do. The question is, is it a *human life* *yet*? If so, one can reasonably argue that it deserves more protection than that unfortunate cow I ate earlier. If not--well, then one can't reasonably argue that it deserves such special protection. That's the issue.
I would argue that the embryo isn't a human life just because it's a human embryo. After all, I can swab clusters of living human cells larger than that one out of my mouth with a q-tip; that doesn't make that particular clump of human cells a human life. I can even keep them and their successor cell lines alive indefinitely, and if I had some very expensive equipment and the expertise to use it, I could even turn those cells into embryos capable of growing into full-fledged autonomous humans through cloning. That still doesn't mean that that bunch of cells is a human life deserving of special legal protections.
If implanted in a uterus and left alone, an embryo will eventually become a human life, that's true. But a single cell from my body could be cloned into an embryo also capable of growing into a human life if left alone in a uterus for a while--which makes it only one step removed from an embryo in terms of the "scale" of what might be considered human life.
But that doesn't mean that either the embryo or my cell that could be turned into an embryo, should be considered a human life. There are a great many steps that need to take place between single-celled embro and fully-formed baby, and it's reasonable to say that the actual human life begins somewhere along that scale. You can make many rational arguments for exactly where to pinpoint the point at which a bunch of cells becomes a ral human life. Embryo is probably the least rational place to pinpoint it, since every mammal starts as a very similar embryo, and a few simple genetic alterations to the single cell of that embryo would yield results that are decidedly not human. Hell, even without genetic alterations, a "stock" human foetus remains physiologically indistinguishable from that of most other mammals for quite some time, even down to the tail.
I reason that the best place to pinpoint where that life becomes a human life would be when the nervous system is fully formed--that is, after all, a key difference between us and other mammals. However, as a "failsafe" to make sure we're not causing a human life any harm, it would be reasonable to make the cut-off point after which no procedures could be performed for experimentation (or abortion, if one is so inclined) that point at which the nervous system is capable of feeling pain, even if the nervous system is not fully formed yet at that point.
Not being a medical doctor with a good background in vertebrate biology myself, I cannot tell you offhand at how many weeks the nervous system is sufficiently developed that it probably feels pain. I can however say with certainty that a clump of undifferentiated cells, whether they be an embryo or something I scratched off my own skin, is completely incapable of feeling pain and therefore tyhere should be no qualms about experimenting with it. Any such qualms are the result of religious opinions, not science, not rational philosophy, and certainly nothing which should be codified into law.
> where do we draw the line? Anywhere we place it, this is a legal and ethical dispute, and need not include theology at all.
That's exactly my point. However, the belief that human life begins at conception and must be protected at that point is an entirely religious or philosophical belief, not a scientific one. Aside from which, again, I pointed out that we can use science to make embryos without what we'd term conception actually taking place--so where does that leave us?
If we want to use science as out touchstone, then we have to use a more concrete standard than *assuming* a few undifferentiated cells constitutes a human life. That isn't to say any one rationally-based interpretation would be more valuable than another, but it is only reasonable in a system of laws supposedly based on post-Enlightenment reason rather than pre-Enlightenment religious morals to use some sort of rational basis for our decisions.
Therefore, why not choose a moment such as when the foetus develops a nervous system likely capable of feeling pain? That would be an entirely reasonable point at which to extend protection, since experimenting on the foetus at that point could cause pain. If it doesn't even have a nervous system developed enough to feel pain, why consider it a human life? What compelling reason is there to do so? None, unless your religion dictates that human life begins at conception. Until that point, using pure reason, we can see that experimenting on the cells causes no harm. Codifying protection for cells which don't even have a nervous system yet into law means pushing religion-based morals on the rest of us with no compelling reason since no one is being protected from demonstrable harm. QED.
> The only issue is whether life begins at conception.
No, that's a red herring. What if there is no conception? What if I turn a cloned adult human cell from a consenting donor into an embryo? Where's the conception? There is none. Where's the unique, new, special human life that the anti-abortion nutsacks want to protect? Not there, because it's the genetic material from a real live consenting human adult that never mixed with that of another person in the process we call conception.
So, what it's really about is what you claim it's not about. It's about people who want to push their religious views on the rest of us by claiming that a bunch of cells isn't just a bunch of cells, but a "human life"--not based on science, or reason, but on opinion. Why is it a human life, when it can't even feel pain since it hasn't even developed a primitive nervous system yet? Why is a five-celled embryo more of a human life than a hundred cells I scratch off my arm without even thinking about it? Because if left alone in a womb it will grow into a human baby? Well, what if it was never, ever in a womb, and was cloned from those hundred cvells I scratched off my arm? And how is that really scientifically any different from an embryo created not by lab cloning but by letting a sperm hit an egg outside a womb? What if we get the egg after it has naturally left the woman's body through menstruation, would that make it okay since that egg was already discarded by God, Nature, the woman, or whatever?
As you see, that's a lot of questions. That's a huge grey area. And yet, to the simplistic anti-abortionists/anti-embryo-researchists, it's black-and-white--because they're motivated by their religious precepts and religious thought, not by rational scientific thought. They are, therefore, pushing their religious ideals on the rest of us, to the detriment of science and the human future.
Here's a religious thought for you, though: instead of thinking human science is going against God's plan, why not embrace it as part of God's plan? Instead of God not wanting us to clone embryos to cure diseases and heal the sick, why not believe that God wants us to, since He let us have that technology? Jesus cured the sick everywhere he went, and then His apostles did--why would He not want us to do the same?
> Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally.
Sure, both the law and society's morality can be against you. But they are *not* one and the same, and modern law *theoretically* doesn't grow out of morality but rather out of the need to protect from harm while preserving rights. There was of course a time when the law was based on religious precepts including the morals of a particular religion, but in Western nations we have outgrown that concept and embraced the acceptance and tolerance of all religions and philosophies, and decided to base our laws on rational notions of human rights and constitutional rights. We made this choice during the Enlightenment, when the need for a seperation of religion and rational thought was posited. Since that point, "faith" and "reason" have been considered different, whereas before "reason" was supposed to be based on "faith". Look what the older notion of basing law on (religious) morality, rather than on rational interpretations of human rights and constitutional rights, has done for most Muslim nations in this day and age.
Our more modern legal system leads to cases which prove that morality and legality are entirely separate memes--although they *usually* intersect since most of us are rooted in a common Judeo-Christian moral heritage which has undoubtedly had an influence on the course of Western rational thought. For example, the recent Supreme Court case striking down laws against "virtual child pornography" struck the majority of Americans as being contrary to morality, and yet it is the law--and rightly, defensably so when you read the thoughts contained in the decision. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to do many things which are immoral--adultery is not illegal in my state, and yet it would be morally wrong on at least two levels for me to fuck my best friend's wife. It's also possible to do something which is illegal but not immoral--it's illegal for someone to give me a copy of DeCSS so that I can take my own DVD copy of *Phantom Menace* and do my own "Phantom Edit" for my personal use, but there's nothing immoral about it.
So, to say that society has the right to dictate what people do based on (religiously-derived) morals, is incorrect. Morality and legality may often intersect, but they are distinct. Society does *not* have the right to enforce morals, only laws. Society can shun you for being immoral, but that's a matter of personal choice on behalf of the people doing the shunning, not a matter of law or fiat. For doing illegal things, however, society can deprive you of life, liberty, or property. They cannot do so if you just do immoral things.
So yes, morality is derived from religion or religious philosophy, and law is derived from reason or rational philosophy. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work in our post-Enlightenment system; unfortunately, some people are too ignorant or too selfish, and want to foist their own moral beliefs on the rest of us.
> Times don't change, 63 years later and still nothing is worth watching on tv.
:-)
Yes, but progress has given us 300 channels of nothing, instead of just one.
> Do Radeons have open drivers yet
Nope. None of the graphics big boys have had fully open-source drivers since 3dfx died. *All* have either closed-source drivers, or party-open-source drivers with closed-source modules.
> are you expected to bet that a Windows box (with wonky ATI drivers, no less)
ATI's drivers have improved *immensely* since the old days. I should know, since I was intrepid enough to buy an All-in-Wonder 128 back when it first debuted, when the shipping drivers were *crap*. It was about a year from my purchase date before the updated drivers were stable and fast enough. While ATI's drivers aren't as good as nVidia's, their current drivers are stable and do fine. Now, when they start making a completely revamped core and need truly new drivers nearly from scratch, expect it to take a long time for the drivers to stabilize--BUT, for the current Radeon-derived cores, the drivers are mature and stable.
Not that that really matters, since most of ATI's driver problems were related to OGL, DX, and gaming support. Video capture has always been a different matter, and their A-i-W cards have always been the best of the pack in that respect. What does it matter if a new game has corruption issues or crashes, if all you're doing is video capture on a home-built PVR?
> will stay up until your show comes on?
I'm using an A-i-W on WindowsXP. I crashed a game, once. WinXP has crashed--never. Video capture has worked without issues 100% of the time. If I were using my current box as a PVR, it would be rock-solid stable with no issues whatsoever. The only reason I'm not is that I can't afford a new PC and this one is always too busy.
If your experience with an A-i-W 128 back when the drivers were pathetic has soured you on ATI, fine, but just don't let it cause you to spread FUD. Drivers have improved remarkably, the A-i-W Radeons are fantastic (esp. the 8500DV--a truly impressive card), and video capture performance and software are superior to any other cards unless you want to pony up for a real pro-level $500+ solution (which would be targeted towards pros, not suitable for PVR use).
> Parts of the software is there. the big thing is the lack of a Program guide.
1 5
Yes, that's why people use All-in-Wonder cards--built-in Program Guide in the form of Guide+ Gold, the same program guide that comes with many newer TVs. ATI has taken the liberty of making a few mods so that the software works more seamlessly with their recording software. Read this:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1609&p=
There's just no substitute for an All-in-Wonder Radeon or above (the All-in-Wonder 128 doesn't come with all the same software, and isn't upgradeable to all the newest versions) if you're building your own PVR. Once I get the money to build a dedicated PVR, the A-i-W will be key. There's simply nothing on the market in the same league.
Actually, the emphasis on story and scariness made me instantly think of *Clive Barker's Undying*. It was far from a perfect game, but it did put an emphasis on story and visuals and fright that wasn't typically seen in FPS games.
So when I hear that *Doom III* will have a focus on scaring the Hell out of people, I can't say it's a new idea in the FPS world. But I'm sure id Software is going to take it to a new level...
It's looking more and more like the perennial complaints by cosmologists and other physicists and astronomers that there's too much mass in the universe for it all to be accounted by visible galaxies, is holding true.
Yes, the mass of certain neutrinos and other "nearly-massless" particles does figure in, just like we've been theorizing and hearing for a long time. However, we are continually finding more and more of this evidence that there are other sources of mass in dark matter.
It'll be interesting to see the theories on what these "dark matter galaxies" are. Is it some form of dark baryonic matter? Or something else? Quite exotic, either way...
> hasn't there been an IE variant to do this for quite a while?
No, I don't believe so. There *might* be an unofficial "hack" for it, but if so I haven't seen it. You may be thinking of the "tabbed" taskbar buttons in WinXP, which group taskbar buttons of the same app--say, IE--together, to save taskbar real estate. I don't like it myself, and have it disabled.
Tabbed browsing is indeed a great and helpful idea, though, which I've been using in Mozilla builds. I just have always hated needing multiple windows for browsing, especially when they "cascade" and open up in a different position on the desktop, as they do in IE versions above 4. I'm anal and have all my windows for every app set to open up in one particular place in the middle of my desktop, so that multiple instances sometimes cascade themselves and ruin that. Using Mozilla with tabbed browsing solved that problem, at least regarding websurfing, which usually opens multiple windows.
Just my opinion though...
> I don't get it: how is this legislation going to prevent children from chatting online with child molestors?
.kids.us will just be another dead area on the Internet, and that kids will
.com or .net or .us. Participation is entirely voluntary both for site-ops and for parents. The way I see it, it gives their side very little since kids will always be able to find an "unhindered" Net connection somewhere, and gives our side a lot since it takes away one of the censors' big arguments. I like the potential.
It's not. It does, however, let the congresspeople say to their sheeple "Look what I'm doing to prevent the big bad Internet from hurting children! No, I don't come to Washington each year just to fondle my interns, use my salary (your tax dollars) to pay for call girls and dinners at Morton's, and erode your freedoms to fit my opinions--I actually pass legislation!"
> Seems to me that this new
> find it boring (aka - no chatting) and return to the same areas they were surfing before.
Sure, but I can't say I mind that part. If it passes--well, then they have one less thing to complain about when they try to pass CDA-style laws to restrict my freedoms to read and write what I wish on the net. So, I think the kids.us domain would be great--then whenever the need for a "kid-safe" Net is touted by censors, we could say "Fuck no! There's already a kid-safe internet! Remember that kids.us domain you wanted? You got it, it's the 'kid-safe Internet' you wanted, so shut the Hell up." Or something like that.
See, I see the potential for kids.us to be used *by our side* to defeat the censors' rationales for stepping on our rights. It's an opt-in system--people can get such a domain if they intend to appeal to kids and are willing to abide by whatever content restrictions Congress wants to impose on that subdomain. If you want to *not* abide by such restrictions, just don't get a silly kids.us address, get a
As for the bill making it easier to wiretap people "suspected of engaging in child pornography, of trying to get children to perform sexual acts for money or of traveling to or bringing children for sexual activity"--I object to this because it's *already* embarrassingly easy to get a wiretap warrant, to the point of being a joke. Some judges--and the police and FBI know exactly which ones to go to--will give a wiretap warrant the minute the prosecutor says "child(ren)." No showing of cause needed. So, making it esier is in no way necessaqry, nor welcome. Kids.us isn't much of a threat or violation of my rights. However, a bill letting police excuse an invasion into my privacy by merely saying "we suspcted him of child porn/abuse/talking mean to a child online," without any evidence or cause whatsoever--well, that's a violation. If you want to invade someone's privacy and wiretap all their communications, sorry, but you should have to show cause.
What I really find laughable though is that the people pushing this legislation with the excuse of this girl in Connecticutt who was murdered clearly had it drafted and were just opportunistically, predatorily waiting around for a child to die at the hands of an adult she met online. Talk about being predators--that's what the bill's authors are, using the death of a child for their own gain. Sickening.
Not to mention the fact that this girl who was murdered wasn't the innocent poster-child she's being made out to be. In reality, that particular girl had been meeting and having sex with strange men she met on the Internet for some time, and had been bragging about her sex life to her classmates. It was only a matter of time before she met one who's a killer as well as a child molester. A sad story, indeed, but not one of an innocent child lured by the Big Bad Internet--rather, of a child who'd already been corrupted, probably by past offline abuse or neglect, who turned to the Internet to find adult sexual partners and bragged about it to her classmates. Something was definitely very wrong in her life, but her unfortunate use of chatrooms was a symptom of it, not the cause of it.
The real predators are our Congressmen. To use a child's death for political gain is disgusting, and the congressmen who introduced these bills are as predatory as the child molester who killed her.
> Tell that to Dmitry.
You know, I'm not kidding when I say that I accidentally read that line:
"Tell that to Disney."
It's really sad when when people have started to subconsciously associate wholesale abuse of the law and the public with the company which brought us Mickey Mouse and DisneyWorld. Wow. I guess the real question becomes--what have they done for us lately, versus what have they taken from us lately?
Draconian copyright laws designed solely to keep Mickey from becoming public property like he would have years ago, and to keep their artificial-scarcity DVD racket going. The shredding of tons of documentation to prevent the family of Pooh's copyright licensor from proving that they weren't given their contractual percentage of the incredible sales. Some "family" company it's become, eh Walt?
> It is my understanding that for some time, feature films have edited digitally. Not like they digitized
:-)
> it, came up with an EDL, the used the EDL to cut the film, but rather that they digitize it, edit it, the
> print back to film.
No, it is not the standard practise to digitize the film and then edit the digital copy and then print it back to 35mm. This has been done, but is not the norm last time I looked, being reserved for almost-all-digital-effects films. Most films will thankfully never fit this bill, focusing on story content rather than special effects--Ithink this has been Lucas' downfall with his prequels; he focuses on the digital effects to the detriment of the dialogue, acting, and all the rest that goes into a great film.
Aside from which, film can be digitized at a higher resolution than current digital cameras can capture, since specialty equipment has been developed for years to do just that.
> I don't know what exactly was done for star wars.
*AotC* was filmed with a special digital camera made by Sony especially for George Lucas--state of the digital art. Then the rendered scenes and characters and the digital film of the live actors were all edited together and then special effects where the live actors interact with the digital characters and scenery were added to that. The resulting "masters" are completely digital, and have been at every step of the process; IIRC the "masters" of *AotC* and *PM* are digitally preserved across a bunch of magneto-optical, optical, and magnetic media, redundantly, for posterity.
> But a lot of digital work isn't done at the highest quality possible.
Absolutely true. To cut costs, rendering is typically done at only a quarter or a half of film's full resolution. The result is usually not noticeably inferior, since that's still a decenmt resolution and if done well will look good even when printed back to 35mm. However, there are many exceptions--like Gladiator. Its digital elements, like the Coliseum background and its digital audience, looked very poor to people with a discerning eye when projected at theaters--muddy, indistinct, undersaturated, and not matching up seamlessly with the action in the foreground. It was all the more noticeable in the action sequences which were shot deliberately at a lower FPS (I think offhand 18fps) in order to produce that famous "tearing" effect during some fight sequences. And, a lot of films with lower-quality digital effects just look *awful* when projected onto a really huge theater screen, even if the effects were done really well and would have looked pristine on a smaller theater screen like you find at your average multiplex.
At any rate, yeah, digital effects are typically done at far less than full 35mm resolution. It makes me long for the days of special effects artists who'd spend weeks on a single detailed model... Today, the same effect is usually done digitally, with the loss of a "real" object and its associated weight and presence. Digital characters and effects often look less realistic precisely because they lack weight and mass, or don't seem to be effected by gravity, or other things which would just "be there" if they were being done with highly detailed real-world special effects artists at the helm instead of CGI artists.
> I think that film is a much more flexible medium for the forseable future, but most people don't work in a way to take advantage of it.
You're right in general terms. A whole lot of movies are using lower-res digital effects, or not using their 35mm capabilities to their utmost. But then again, I think we have to look to those few films that really do transcend anything digital has to offer today. Look at a truly great, well-shot film like *American Beauty*. Its cinematographer has had 50 years of experience behind a 35mm camera, and it shows--no scene is shot poorly, the lighting is so perfect as to generally not be noticed, and the effects that different film stocks and camera settings have have been used to great advantage. Digital (except of course in the scenes where a consumer-level DVcam was used to show the kids' use of that camera) would never have produced that richness and texture--things would have looked, well, more ordinary. In addition, while digital special effects had to be used for some scenes for obvious reason--the rose petals flying from Mena Suvari's chest, e.g.--most things were done with good old-fashioned "real" effects. The scene in the steamy bathroom between Spacey and Suvari, for example, used real steam and real lighting effects. Theoretically, digital effects could have been used to produce steamy fog and lighting effects--but it ouldn't have looked so real and so striking as when done with the real thing.
Let's also not forget that film just has a "look" of its own, distinct from either digital processes or "real life." That look of film is what we're more or less used to seeing on the big screen and even on the small screen when it comes to movies. It's stylized in a soft, "natural" way, due in great measure to the lighting required when working with film. Digital film seems to me more harsh and less forgiving, showing off every blemish and making things look like harsh reality rather than the escapism of a film. This can be used to great effect, as in the boot-camp war movie *Tigerland*, which was shot on digital and looks the better for it because the harshness and "reality look" of digital matches the harshness and eality of the situation. But in most cases, that "harsh" look would be far less welcome. Even George Lucas has gone to great lengths to make his digital movies "look" like they were shot on film. Ironic.
> Starwars would have been one film that should have though.
I do miss the old *Star Wars* movies. First off, because as much attention was paid to dialogue and character development and acting as was paid to the special effects. I think this is Lucas' biggest problem with his latest films. But I also miss that the special effects were "real," done with very elaborateloy detailed life-size models of aliens and real people inside costumes--because they have a weight and real presence, and little unintentional movements which make them look natural and real. You don't get unintentional movements with digital effcts, and consequently they often look unrealistic, and they always lack realistic responses to gravity since weight is very complex and doesn't usually figure into digital effects yet except as a "guesstimate" by some animators. Before digital effects can look realistic, gravity and mass will have to be accurately modelled for digital elements instead of guessed at by an animator.
just my opinions though.
...and render unto 35mm that which is analogue.
- star15.html http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/0 5/051001.html
What you noticed is actually the *opposite* of what is generally the case regarding *AotC*. Mo0st likely, if the digital projections looked worse in some way--more blurry, less saturated, etc.--than the film projections, then this is entirely the fault of the digital projector or some other element in the theater being set wrong. It's probably that the digital projector's settings were not all adjusted optimally, since the tech is so new. Hell, my local multiplex often sets their standard film projctors sub-optimally, and that tech is ancient...
The fact is, assuming the digital projector is set up correctly, *AotC* will look better on a digital screen because it is an entirely digital movie. The masters are digital, and when you see a digitally projected version, it should be as pristine as the masters (or nearly so, if resolution has to be adjusted). If you see a standard 35mm print of the film, you're seeing a digital->analogue conversion which willn not be as crisp and vibrant.
This is not true of showing most films, though, because most are primarily shot on film and not digital--even films with a lot of digital effects everywhere are generally primarily film. This has the advantage that a 35mm print has a far superior resolution than even the special custom digital camera which Sony made for George Lucas to shoot his digital movies with. 35mm film also has much greater sensitivity to a broader spectrum of colors than current digital cameras will allow--50 years of development on the color film stock front has produced some amazing things. So, while there is generational loss in th analogue->analogue transfer from master to new print, it hardly matters since the resolution is so vastly greater than the resolution of digital, and since the color spectrum is wider than current digital video camera sensitivities. This is why people like film critic Roger Ebert, and even me, can't stand digital projection for 35mm movies--even with my 20/100 vision, I can see the inferior resolution and color saturation of a film that was intended for 35mm when it's projected digitally on a very big screen.
So, naturally, it would seem that all-digital films like the new *SW* movies and digital animation like *Shrek* should best be viewed on digital projectors, while movies which are primarily 35mm are bet viewed on a traditional 35mm projector. And the fact is, until digital technology makes resolutions and color spectra approaching that of 35mm film possible both on the shooting and the projecting ends, I don't believe digital should be adopted as the standard.
Don't get me wrong--the time will come to go digital. But until its resolutions and color sensitivities can truly rival 35mm, that time is not now.
As an aside, here's film critic Roger Ebert's take--he's an outspoken critic of current digital projection for films shot on 35mm, but he shows an even-handedness when it comes to allowing that digital films naturally look better on digital projectors: http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr
The fact is, except for all-digital special effects films like the *SW* movies, the current push for digital is coming out of economic penny-pinching rather than better quality. There was a time when Hollywood was interested in greater quality and experimented with impressive 70mm filmstocks and 48fps speed. 35mm and 24fps stuck around because it's cheaper, albeit less visually stunning. And now digital, which has 1/5 to 1/7 the resolution and less color sensitivity at the moment, is chomping at the bit. For all-digital special effects flicks likw *SW* and *Shrek*, naturally it makes sense since rendering isn't yet done at very high resolutions (compred to 35mm). For other films, it doesn't, especially when projected on a rally impressive screen where the resolution, saturation, and intensity will be exposed for their inferiority.
Windows is certainly not the "best" gaming platform ever in terms of tech--hell, I even hung my WinXP the other day playing a game; let alone how many times I hang 98lite which is my primary gaming platform. However, it *is* the computer gaming platform with the largest number of quality released games available, and likely always will be thanks to the sheer numbers of quality legacy games out there that will never be ported to anything else.
Geeks love gaming. A lot of them may wish that all the greatest games came out for Linux too, but that's simply never going to happen--realistically, some of the best games will always be "bought" or developed by Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, or developers in an "exclusive relationship" with them. Consequently, as closed and proprietary as most consoles are, a lot of geeks will buy them. Likewise, as proprietary as Windows is, a lot of geeks will always keep a Win partition or gaming box. One can still dislike the reality while acknowledging it.
I for one will always have Windows for gaming. Even if every new title were to start shipping with Linux support, that wouldn't replace my library of great and classic titles which are Windows-only What I'd really like is to be able to run all my games under one single unified platform--a pipe dream, even with emulators getting more numerous and better. No version of Wine is ever likely to run all of our favorite PC games, unless by some miracle the Win9x source is opened--yeah, maybe in 50 years.Likewise, it will be a very, very long time until we can play *Luigi's Mansion* under a Gamecube emulator for our computers. So, until those days come, there is no hypocrisy in using Windows or another closed platform for gaming--just as I can advocate better and more humane treatment for cows and other animals while not completely denying myself meat; just as I can be a proponent of alternative fuel systems to replace current oil-based systems, without having to walk everywhere.
Aside from which, if every Linux-using geek in the world never bought another Windows game again, it wouldn't make a dent in the sales figures. Almost all games are targeted, naturally, at a more general audience than "Linux evangelists, ages 12-36." What can be useful is buying the Linux versions of games that will have Linux versions--that way voices get heard, and game developers get encouraged to port to Linux. Not buying Windows-only games will not, however, encourage porting to Linux, since most end-users use Windows and a boycott by Linux users will be statistically insignificant.
Not that it matters, anyway, because I think NWN will have a Linux verion anyway if I'm not mistaken. So, go buy the Linux port when it comes out and stop whining. If I misread and a Linux port isn't planned, then write and politely ask for one, and enough letters may convince them.
In any event, stop trolling and go to bed. No soup for you!
> Then it's really a shame that your elected republican representatives are voting "pro-life".
:-) How many restrictions did they try to pass? Parental consent for minors to get abortions. That isn't a bad idea, since most people would want their 15 year old daughters to talk to them about abortions before getting one.
:-)
That's the most ill-informed FUD I've ever heard. The Republicans had control of the House and Senate for quite some time, and how many bills to outlaw abortion did they pass? None.
We pay lip service to the Christian extremists to get their votes. In return, we give them almost nothing.
Oh, and guess who wrote the Roe v. Wade decision? A Nixon appointee. Guess who's been the deciding vote on most of the close Supreme Court decisions that have stricken down oppressive laws like CPPA? Thomas, a Bush appointee. And many of the Reagan appointees uphold our civil liberties better than Clinton appointees like that annoying liberal bitch I don't even want to name because she votes so often for government intrusion in our lives that I can't stand her.
Republicans are protectors of our liberties. Democrats are just too stupid to realize it. The ideal government is a balance between the two, since Republicans have anti-civil-liberties stands on some issues, and Democrats have anti-civil-liberties stands on others. So to preserve the most civil liberties, we need deadlock.
> Why is it that no historian knew about this plant until after Roe v. Wade?
The knowledge was certainly there, but let's be frank: no one even considered such mundane matters "history" until relatively recently, about the last 30 years or so. History in general has been about the great sweeping forces of politics, war, and the lives of the wealthy or powerful. Only lately have we cared about finding out how people conducted their daily lives--particularly how women conducted their daily lives.
But certainly knowledge of silphium and other herbal abortificants has *always* been there. The writings of ancient physicians such as Dioskorides and Galen mention silphium, sometimes in depth--giving dosages, methods of preparation, etc. And indeed, in many parts of the world herbal preparations of other ferula varieties or other herbs such as rue are to this day used to induce abortions for unwanted pregnancies, as has always been the case. Some may not like it, but abortions are natural in that since prehistory certain herbs have been used to intentionally cause abortion. It's only in the Christian era that knowledge of how to induce abortions was suppressed.
The plant was Ferula historica, also called silphium or sylphion, and sometimes known as "giant fennel." It was taken in very low doses as a contraceptive, and in larger doses following pregnancy to induce abortions. By all accounts it worked with 100% effectiveness at inducing abortions, and it probably worked about as effectively as our modern "pill" does at preventing pregnancies.
B ir th%20Control%20in%20Antiquity.htm
h tm l
m l
h iu m2.htm
c at ions/naturesplace/np_sylphion.shtml
It was so sought after, yet so hard to cultivate, that it was extinct by about the third century. This is a great loss, since Silphium's effectiveness rivaled that of modern equivalents, and its widespread use indicated that it *probably* didn't have too many unwanted side effects. I can only imagine how popular an herbal contraceptive as effective as the pill would be.
Here are a few links:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/13_2%20
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/contra1.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1993/04.04.08.ht
http://ancient-coins.com/articles/silphium/silp
http://www.populationaction.org/resources/publi
I'd been a customer of a local ISP for about five years. During that time, they were bought up by a larger regional ISP, which was then bought up by an even larger one.
:-) Apparently they don't get many calls, since almost everyone deals directly with their more local subsidiaries, even though everyone's billing goes directly to this entity. I got right through, no holding, unlike the hour or so I'd wasted on hold at the smaller subsidiaries. I told the woman who answered that I'd like to cancel my account; she asked my name and address and account name, and then said I was cancelled. She didn't even ask for my password, much less my credit card number for verification. I was floored--and relieved.
:-)
I'd been happy with my service. $9.95 a month, only very rare connection problems or time-outs. But hey--it was finally time for cable! Yum, more pr0n, faster.
So, I called the ISP at the local office I'd signed up at year ago. They wanted to know what my username and password were, and what my bank card number was--I'd had direct billing. So, I gave it all to them--but wait, the bank card number wasn't right. Just a moment, I said; there's a second card since it's a joint account, and I might have signed up with that other number. But no, that number didn't match either. Oops, I remembered--a couple months earlier my bank sent out replacement cards, with instructions to destroy the older ones. Hmmm. I'd signed up with a bank card number I no longer had.
So, they said they couldn't help me cancel "for security purposes" without the card number. But, I have the password? Nope, it doesn't matter because the password could have been shared with a third party. But wait, isn't that against your TOS? Umm, yes, but it doesn't matter I still can't cancel your account.
So, supervisor time. Same song and dance. No disconnection.
That's when I called the company which had bought the old local company, and went through a similar song and dance. No luck.
So, I called the bank, which said they couldn't stop payment on any debit card withdrawals unless I come in and sign some forms. I'd hate to waste more of my day...
So, I finally called the larger ISP which had bought the regional ISP which had bought the local ISP.
Of course, I had a friend who was not so lucky at getting his desired cancellation. He couldn't get it done, no matter what he said--I don't remember what he no longer had that they needed for verification. I do, however, remember how he finally got his desired account cancellation: he e-mailed the sysadmin listed on the ISP's site, and said something like "Your billing department refuses to cancel my account. Well, I'm e-mailing you from the address associated with my account, to tell you that if you don't cancel my service immediately, I will post my dialup username and password and POP server information to several websites and newsgroups frequented by spammers and hackers, so that they can use my account for whatever they want until you cancel it yourself for TOS violations. I apologize, but this is my last recourse. I'm giving my account details to spammers and hackers in two days, unless my account is cancelled by then."
Well, he got his account cancelled that way.
> Many of the pro-lifers(republicans) are in favor of stopping all forms of birth control
Don't even make the mistake of thinking "pro-life=Republican". I am a Republican because it's the (major) party which in general wants to keep government out of our lives the most. I am, however, pro-abortion, as are many Republicans. Just beause the extremists are more vocal does not mean that they represent the views of all of us.
> you still have thousands of abortions a day to justify. So, this sidebar is a red herring.
:-) Use some logic, my friend.
No, not at all. You see, the exception proves that rule is incorrect.
> Control your body. Your baby, however, is not part of your body.
Good, then it should be acceptable to remove that baby from the woman's body if that's the woman's choice, and let the fetus get along on its own. Let's remove it in one piece, by inducing premature expulsion of the fetus, so that we can't be said to be directly killing that fetus. It'll die, of course, if it's expelled from the host body early enough--but we haven't killed it directly, it died of its own accord because it lacked self-sufficiency. Would that be acceptable tou you? No? Then you don't *really* believe that women should have control over their own bodies, you only like to say you do.
> But who did the forcing? The aggressor who committed the crime. They should be held permanently
> accountable, and forced to provide financially for that child. Killing the child solves nothing.
A statistically significant percentage of rapists are never found and convicted. What then? Then is it acceptable to remove the fetus? And what if he is found--who's going to have to be burdened with the care of the child for the next 18 years, him? No? The woman, of course. Even if she gives it up for adoption, she will have been forced to endure the humiliation and pain of carrying a rapists unwanted child for nine months of her life, definitely interrupting it and her future, possibly destroying her chances for college or career advancement, and making her subject to health problems and permanent body changes. That is unacceptable and inhuman, and you clearly lack in compassion and understanding if you would force a woman to endure that. Even worse, what if this woman is a high-school girl whose youth will be taken away because you're forcing her to bear a rapist's baby? Yes, children have become pregnant from rape before. Your arguments are blunt and ill-conceived. Worse, you're a very bad person for wanting to push your own religiously-based notions on others, even when they would cause those people pain and degradation.
You are just a very selfish moralist, pushing his own religious agenda on the rest of the world no matter who is harmed. At least my opinion gives rights to people who are clearly and provably human beings. Yours takes those rights away from people who are clearly and provably human beings, in order to give them to unborn fetuses which are only debatably human beings, and not provably so. My stance is, therefore, clearly the logical one.