Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.
The official budget of the Avatar production was $237 million. Your quoting the absolute highest rumored budget including the complete marketing, which isn't exactly relevant here. Even we assume this is correct. I'm sure any studio would prefer to create 1 movie for $430 million which grosses 1 billion within 3 weeks, than 10 medium grossing movies. The return on investment is faster and the overhead is lower.
The biggest problem facing OO is that it's not MS Office. The latter is one of the few applications people actually bother to learn. That is, they have usually invested some or a lot of time learning the places and uses of various functions. Most organizations simply prefer to just splash out on the license fees than having to retrain their employees. The same sort of problem is facing the Gimp. It's fine for new users, but seasoned designers don't like to learn the workflow of a new application. The solution for OO to gain significant market share would seem to be:
A) Be exactly like MS Office, at least from a usability standpoint B) Offer some substantial functionality over MS Office that would not be easily duplicated by MS
The first one would call for a flexible, theme-able GUI - like Firefox - that would allow the application to at least look like the one being used. Win on Win, Mac on Mac, etc. Placement of functions would have to be consistent with MS Office for a given version and platform. This requires some serious coordination and preferably a centralized effort. The second one isn't as easy, since it much depends on the type of user that's targeted. Perhaps a web-based version? This might impact the TCO and drag management along. Anyone planning to deploy OO should consider what the gains are going to be for the user/customer, simply being open/free isn't enough.
I completely agree with John on this. A challenge was set. The team first to meet this challenge was Armadillo and so should be awarded the first prize. What if I better even Masten's result in a month or so? Will they take back their prize and award it to me? In the eyes of the public, the first one to complete a challenge wins it. Any deviation from this seems unfair and only hurts the image of all involved.
As the owner of a carrier-neutral iPhone (I actually paid the full amount in Belgium for a phone without strings attached), I use a "hacked" profile. It's actually perfectly legal for me to do so, as I pay my carrier for "full" data bundle, including tethering support. In this specific case, tethering is still enabled after the 3.1 update. So either Apple makes an exception for simlock-free phones, or my profile slipped through the checks. Any ideas?
Hold on, isn't that what middle class is supposed to be like? I'm not sure I'd like my middle class to be super progressive. Big risks are for those with a lot to win or nothing to lose, aren't they?
1) It's James Cameron. Is this still Slashdot? Do I really have to explain who this is and why he deserves some credit? 2) IMAX 3D. It's phenomenal. Really, it is. The Avatar preview was one of the most exciting things I've seen, visually, in a long time. It was like playing Doom for the first time. Or the first time seeing bullet time in the Matrix. And I know what you're going to say, "a good film should be enjoyable on any medium". Sure, enjoyable. But would you say that a Rembrandt is just as enjoyable to watch as a monochrome poststamp reproduction? Or that you'd just as well listen to Pink Floyd over the telephone? No, it would ruin the experience. Cameron has always pushed the envelope both visually and technically. T2 and Aliens were mostly just very well designed and executed remakes of the original, mostly. 3) The plot. Most of us haven't read the screenplay. So we are basing our judgment on a two minute trailer. The premise of "Dances with Wolves" in space doesn't sound exciting, so what? It's exactly that; a premise. Most films are based on a simple premise, it's what you do with it that matters. I personally like the idea of a classic adventure film set it space, but maybe that's me. If you don't like a story about a young man who leaves his home planet to fight with a group of rebels against a technically seemingly superior power by tapping into some mythical power, so be it. 4) The trailer. I actually agree. I don't think it's well done at all. Too much slow-motion, which completely cripples the motion capture performance. After seeing it, I had serious doubts about going to the IMAX screening. I can only say, I'm glad I went.
I have just seen the IMAX presentation and none of my above comments still stand. The trailer, or any non-3D screening for that matter, do NOT do this film justice. This really is something completely new.
I agree with your comments and I can pinpoint some other things that were (only slightly) off: 1) Eye movement should be more rapid and continuous. Human eyes are moving all the time, especially during emotional conversation (the "this is great" moment. 2) There should more feeling of mass and inertia, both in the heavy robots (as you mentioned), but also in the lighter creatures. See the girl jumping in front of the fire and running along without seemingly even bending her knees. 3) In some scenes either the mocap was off, or they just posed a figure by hand, with bad results. The scene where the guy yells at the bird, we see the girl climbing on the back of the bird and the guy is standing there like an action figure in robot chicken. 4) The predator thing isn't an issue for me as the creature doesn't appear to be hunting the guy, but trying to scare him away, animals do that. 5) The figures shouldn't be posed to "theatrically", especially with those long limbs. I understand mocapping requires a certain amount of overacting the movements, but don't stand there like someone in a ballet. Having said all that, it's only because the set the bar so high, that things like this really stand out.
Indeed, it's not augmented reality, as this implies using the visual feed itself for analysis. In fact, I would go as far as saying that using the term for this particular product is a bit misleading. The video feed has no practical application here whatsoever. I am perfectly capable of translating the information onscreen onto the real world. Basically, this is Google Earth with a redundant video background.
Hide the stego program inside another binary. Running an application with a hidden option would then turn it into a stego program. No idea how viable this is.
Install a SFF system (Mac Mini, Shuttle, whatever) at a neighbours' house (across the street, preferably), but within reach of your wlan. Using your preferred method (cronned rsync, time machine, whatever) automate the creation of daily, hourly, whatever backups. Offer free internet access, PC maintenance, whatever in return. Make sure it's internet accessible for those trips. Done: Free, fast, regular offsite backups.
1) Every person should have access to good, quality healthcare (prisoners too, you brute, ne bis in idem): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_systems 2) The ability of wealthier persons to choose a more expensive and (possibly, sometimes) more effective treatment.
I wholeheartedly agree to the first point, but you and I both apparently already enjoy this right (Dutch system for me). The US is a bit (a lot?) behind here. But to say that the second point is bad, is IMHO indeed a socialist (if not communist) statement. Are you saying that, because we can't afford to offer this type of treatment to the general populace, it should be denied to people who can afford out of pocket? Remember, it is very likely, that procedures and techniques pioneered by small, commercially funded centers will eventually trickle down to general healthcare, where otherwise they might not have been developed in the first place.
I don't agree. For me the performance of Yoda in AotC (especially the Dooku scene) was the highlight of the film and far superior to that of Hayden Christensen.
Finally, somebody with a grasp on reality. Fact of the matter is, nobody outside of the/. crowd gives a crap about which/what/where codebase. If you own IP, sales, support, you own the product. Forks to them are nothing more than unpaid R&D/market research.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of spending $430million making one bloated FX crap-test they could have made 10 regular films.
The official budget of the Avatar production was $237 million. Your quoting the absolute highest rumored budget including the complete marketing, which isn't exactly relevant here.
Even we assume this is correct. I'm sure any studio would prefer to create 1 movie for $430 million which grosses 1 billion within 3 weeks, than 10 medium grossing movies. The return on investment is faster and the overhead is lower.
crowds of quip and floppy raiders?
The biggest problem facing OO is that it's not MS Office. The latter is one of the few applications people actually bother to learn. That is, they have usually invested some or a lot of time learning the places and uses of various functions. Most organizations simply prefer to just splash out on the license fees than having to retrain their employees. The same sort of problem is facing the Gimp. It's fine for new users, but seasoned designers don't like to learn the workflow of a new application.
The solution for OO to gain significant market share would seem to be:
A) Be exactly like MS Office, at least from a usability standpoint
B) Offer some substantial functionality over MS Office that would not be easily duplicated by MS
The first one would call for a flexible, theme-able GUI - like Firefox - that would allow the application to at least look like the one being used. Win on Win, Mac on Mac, etc. Placement of functions would have to be consistent with MS Office for a given version and platform. This requires some serious coordination and preferably a centralized effort.
The second one isn't as easy, since it much depends on the type of user that's targeted. Perhaps a web-based version? This might impact the TCO and drag management along.
Anyone planning to deploy OO should consider what the gains are going to be for the user/customer, simply being open/free isn't enough.
but do they feature Lotus Notes and a machine gun?
I don't care what they do, cause I'm not spending $3k on a MacBook Pro...
Ok, your call. But for the record, $2500 buys you a 17" MacBook Pro, which leaves you $500 for some DIY (SSD, 8GB) upgrades. Pretty cool stuff.
I completely agree with John on this. A challenge was set. The team first to meet this challenge was Armadillo and so should be awarded the first prize. What if I better even Masten's result in a month or so? Will they take back their prize and award it to me? In the eyes of the public, the first one to complete a challenge wins it. Any deviation from this seems unfair and only hurts the image of all involved.
The iPhone may be a closed platform, but at least data I/O isn't forced through Apple's servers.
It is if you want live notifications: http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/sdk/apns.html
The line between major corporations and the mafia is a grey one.
No, it's not. The law is not a grey line.
As the owner of a carrier-neutral iPhone (I actually paid the full amount in Belgium for a phone without strings attached), I use a "hacked" profile. It's actually perfectly legal for me to do so, as I pay my carrier for "full" data bundle, including tethering support. In this specific case, tethering is still enabled after the 3.1 update. So either Apple makes an exception for simlock-free phones, or my profile slipped through the checks. Any ideas?
Hold on, isn't that what middle class is supposed to be like? I'm not sure I'd like my middle class to be super progressive.
Big risks are for those with a lot to win or nothing to lose, aren't they?
Damn it, I messed up the correction! Still modded Informative though, I guess nobody cares...
First of, it's 3do (three-dee-oh): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D3o
3DO was a video game company and console: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_3DO_Company
This product, as applied to laptop cases, was recently pitched on Dragon's Den (BBC): http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/entrepreneurs/jasonroberts.shtml
1) It's James Cameron. Is this still Slashdot? Do I really have to explain who this is and why he deserves some credit?
2) IMAX 3D. It's phenomenal. Really, it is. The Avatar preview was one of the most exciting things I've seen, visually, in a long time. It was like playing Doom for the first time. Or the first time seeing bullet time in the Matrix. And I know what you're going to say, "a good film should be enjoyable on any medium". Sure, enjoyable. But would you say that a Rembrandt is just as enjoyable to watch as a monochrome poststamp reproduction? Or that you'd just as well listen to Pink Floyd over the telephone? No, it would ruin the experience. Cameron has always pushed the envelope both visually and technically. T2 and Aliens were mostly just very well designed and executed remakes of the original, mostly.
3) The plot. Most of us haven't read the screenplay. So we are basing our judgment on a two minute trailer. The premise of "Dances with Wolves" in space doesn't sound exciting, so what? It's exactly that; a premise. Most films are based on a simple premise, it's what you do with it that matters. I personally like the idea of a classic adventure film set it space, but maybe that's me. If you don't like a story about a young man who leaves his home planet to fight with a group of rebels against a technically seemingly superior power by tapping into some mythical power, so be it.
4) The trailer. I actually agree. I don't think it's well done at all. Too much slow-motion, which completely cripples the motion capture performance. After seeing it, I had serious doubts about going to the IMAX screening. I can only say, I'm glad I went.
I have just seen the IMAX presentation and none of my above comments still stand. The trailer, or any non-3D screening for that matter, do NOT do this film justice. This really is something completely new.
I agree with your comments and I can pinpoint some other things that were (only slightly) off:
1) Eye movement should be more rapid and continuous. Human eyes are moving all the time, especially during emotional conversation (the "this is great" moment.
2) There should more feeling of mass and inertia, both in the heavy robots (as you mentioned), but also in the lighter creatures. See the girl jumping in front of the fire and running along without seemingly even bending her knees.
3) In some scenes either the mocap was off, or they just posed a figure by hand, with bad results. The scene where the guy yells at the bird, we see the girl climbing on the back of the bird and the guy is standing there like an action figure in robot chicken.
4) The predator thing isn't an issue for me as the creature doesn't appear to be hunting the guy, but trying to scare him away, animals do that.
5) The figures shouldn't be posed to "theatrically", especially with those long limbs. I understand mocapping requires a certain amount of overacting the movements, but don't stand there like someone in a ballet.
Having said all that, it's only because the set the bar so high, that things like this really stand out.
Indeed, it's not augmented reality, as this implies using the visual feed itself for analysis. In fact, I would go as far as saying that using the term for this particular product is a bit misleading. The video feed has no practical application here whatsoever. I am perfectly capable of translating the information onscreen onto the real world.
Basically, this is Google Earth with a redundant video background.
worst. name. ever.
Hide the stego program inside another binary. Running an application with a hidden option would then turn it into a stego program. No idea how viable this is.
Install a SFF system (Mac Mini, Shuttle, whatever) at a neighbours' house (across the street, preferably), but within reach of your wlan. Using your preferred method (cronned rsync, time machine, whatever) automate the creation of daily, hourly, whatever backups. Offer free internet access, PC maintenance, whatever in return. Make sure it's internet accessible for those trips.
Done: Free, fast, regular offsite backups.
Alternatively, use very long CAT cable.
You are confusing two things:
1) Every person should have access to good, quality healthcare (prisoners too, you brute, ne bis in idem): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_systems
2) The ability of wealthier persons to choose a more expensive and (possibly, sometimes) more effective treatment.
I wholeheartedly agree to the first point, but you and I both apparently already enjoy this right (Dutch system for me). The US is a bit (a lot?) behind here.
But to say that the second point is bad, is IMHO indeed a socialist (if not communist) statement. Are you saying that, because we can't afford to offer this type of treatment to the general populace, it should be denied to people who can afford out of pocket? Remember, it is very likely, that procedures and techniques pioneered by small, commercially funded centers will eventually trickle down to general healthcare, where otherwise they might not have been developed in the first place.
I like this one better: http://diskcompare.com/
Although this situation is clearly unacceptable, I would not have called your remark insightful. Apple has been pretty busy with the security updates:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222
As a whole, I would say leopard is pretty secure (when compared to linux, compared to windows it's ironclad). If additional security is required, consider:
http://www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/security_configuration_guides/operating_systems.shtml#AppleMac
You reminded me of this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_TB6onHVE
I don't agree. For me the performance of Yoda in AotC (especially the Dooku scene) was the highlight of the film and far superior to that of Hayden Christensen.
Finally, somebody with a grasp on reality. Fact of the matter is, nobody outside of the /. crowd gives a crap about which/what/where codebase. If you own IP, sales, support, you own the product. Forks to them are nothing more than unpaid R&D/market research.