Well, despite that ruling, the SCOTUS is still wrong on that issue. 4 of the 9 judges did not agree with this ruling, and neither do I.
You have a right to be secure in your person or in your house, and that of course includes not giving your name if asked.
I saw the video of that case, and the police was out of line, and the officers involved should be relieved of their duties.
But going back to the original issue, the only thing you can compare this to, would be a law requiring all street vendors to put their real name and address on every counterfit CD/DVD/VHS they sell.
It's a stacking law... it's a ridiculous law passed to make something which is already illegal more illegal... by having you commit multiple crimes instead of one, they can achieve a higher guilty rate, by offering to drop the other charges if you plead guilty to one count.
I think it's ridiculous having a law which requires you to identify yourself when you do something illegal, even if nobody knows you broke the law, and even if nobody cought you. Why not just enforce the laws already on the books? What's next? A law which requires you to turn yourself in whenever you commit a crime and don't get caught? I mean, based on this, why the hell not? That way theyll have a second charge of "not confessing to a crime" they can then drop if the accused confesses to the real crime. Same logic at work...
This whole thing is just absurd to the nth degree.
Groundbreaking is a perfectly apt description for this film, in every sense of the word, and yes, it can be used about something other than construction jobs.
Think of what the word means, and implies.
Groundbreaking, as in breaking ground... the first to successfully do something new which will be mimicked and built upon by future generations and will inspire an entire generation of those who want to do something similar.
Breaking ground in the world of cinema, is the first successful attempt at something that has not been done before but will lead to others doing the same. As far as visual effects goes films such as 2001, Star Wars, The Abyss, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Toy Story, Shrek or any of the Ray Harryhousen projects, were all groundbreaking in their own right and in their own way.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is groundbreaking. It's the first successful attempt at entirely eliminating practical sets and locations. Star Wars Episode 1 and a few others have successfully used CGI sets for a number of shots, but they still used practical sets. The technology itself was groundbreaking back then, and to many still is. However, the full scale application of it here in a big budget film (which is an enormous risk), is what's groundbreaking.
When will we get Hustler TV? Or SCORE TV? A real, no holes barred, hardcore porn channel with closeups, penetration and moneyshots? How about a 24hr Pussyman marathon? Why is it that a $10 PPV version of a porno shows almost nothing, when a $3 rented dvd version of the same porno is a full blown version that shows everything? Since when do the FCC decency regulations apply to closed circuit PAID TV? And on that subject, who's idea of decency is the gold standard? What happened to the 1st Amendment? What's wrong with these people?
If I want to watch boring softcore crap, I can turn on Cinemax...
I have an HDTV and 1080i looks incredible, with the exception of fast moving video shot at 1080i, because the 4:2:0 color compression screws it up, and creates color banding and unwanted blending. If you watch 1080i originated material frame by frame in MPEG2 format, in fast scenes the color information is sometimes a frame ahead of the fast moving object... quite obvious when you pause the HD TiVo, but hardly noticable at all at 59.94 fields per second.
The main reason 1080i is used and not 1080p, is because it allows for two progressive fields of 540p/59.94 which are then split up into an interlaced picture of 1080i allowing for smoother motion. I love 1080p/24 material, having shot and worked with it myself. I'm not as thrilled with 1080i, but it still looks fantastic.
If TV as you know it is analog, then yes, Digital TV will be the end of TV a we know it, but it doesn't suck. The only thing that does suck, are cable companies not utilizing the full 19.4Mbps bandwidth. Most of the ones I have are closer to 9 or 10Mbps, and in high action sequences the mpeg just falls apart on the most compressed channels. PBS and DiscoveryHD usually have the best quality, but HBO is hopelessly compressed and since the compression is done in hardware, in real time, it can look awful in fast action scenes, while slow scenes still look acceptable.
Converting 480i to 480p isn't as graceful as you make it sound. I do this sort of stuff for a living, and there is no justification for "mice teeth" in video, ever. If you have to convert to progressive, far better to use interpolation filters during encoding, rather than using bob or weave in the receiver. Interlacing, while it definitely does suck on projected images, is still a good idea for TVs and you're wrong, it was not used as a cheap analog way of compressing the signal at a 1:2 ratio. It was used as a way to get rid of flicker on your TV. 30 frames per second simply isn't fast enough when shown on a CRT Tube. The image has a very noticable flicker. Using 60 fields, and showing them interlaced, promptly doubled the number of pictures visible on screen, and cut the flicker in half. It's still visible if you look, but for the most part, it's fine. Unless of course you have a very big TV, but then again, the NTSC standard was never meant to be seen on anything bigger than 12" anyway.
I have an HDTV CRT, as well as a projector. If I don't de-interlace the signal that goes into my projector, it doesn't look very appetizing on a 100" projected image. However, my HDTV looks perfectly natural, as it uses scanlines natively.
Material shot and produced on HD looks fantastic at 1080i, in its uncompressed state. The problem here is the 4:2:0 color compression of MPEG2, not the resolution. In fact, you'll see exactly the same kind of problems in PAL DV cameras (they also use 4:2:0, whereas NTSC DV cameras use 4:1:1 and don't have the color banding issues).
What you have to consider, are the benefits of each format. 720p has fewer lines, but at the same time can afford more bandwidth per frame. 1080i splits the signal in half in order to send the same bitrate without losing too much image quality, but suffers the color banding effect on 59.94i material, while still looking sensational on material originating at 24p or even 30p. Upconverting 720p to 1080i isn't as bad as you make it sound. Mostly because they have the same amount of pictures per second. 720p doesn't use 59.94 full images per second, it uses 29.97 images per second that are then shown twice on your 720p capable TV set (shown twice to eliminate flickering). Thus, when converting to 1080i, each 720 is first blown up to 1080, and then split into two 540 line chunks, which are then interlaced on your screen. Since the motion is exactly the same in both fields, you are pretty much seeing a full 1080 picture, even though the source was 720 and thus not as sharp as 1080p. This resolution takes up less bandwidth than does 1080i, and
Well, yes and no. I completely see your point, and I could even agree with it, if this was a case of someone coming out with a better technology, making your technology obsolete without destroying it.
However... this is a case of someone deliberately designing a product that counteracts yours, thereby making yours not just obsolete, but useless. Some might see that as sabotage.
Although, you could probably stretch this reasoning to allow gun manufacturers to sue makers of bullet-proof vests... so I certainly understand how this would be difficult.
But I hope you get my point.
Personally, I think this should be illegal. Caller ID is there for a reason. If you don't want people to know who's calling, you can turn it off, which is perfectly fine, but I don't think you should have the right to impersonate someone else's instead.
This paragraph stood out, and I was gonna write something about it if nobody else had...
So, basically, they're jumping on the SCO bandwagon blaming "anarchist hippies" for their F'd up business model. What did they expect? Civilians greeting them as liberators throwing flowers at them? No, wait... wrong discussion for that line.
Personally, I think death threats are going too far, but loud complaints are in order, and should be expected. In fact, a service such as this one, should upset the makers of Caller ID equipment more than it does regular folks, as this basically makes the technology obsolete and takes us back to the days before Caller ID. Any phone company charging their customers extra for Caller ID could possibly have a case against the company over lost revenue.
You're right... either there is choice, or there isn't. Although, sometimes perceived choice may not be a choice...
Basically, the way I see it, if we were to assume physical time travel was possible, there could be only two basic possibilities here, from the basis of which there are lots of variations.
1. your presence in the past was already in your timeline and therefore you had no choice but to go, which opens up a whole slew of philosophical questions, as you not going would be a paradox which would directly affect your own timeline.
2. your precense in the past was NOT in your timeline and thus there must be consequences:
a) Your actions affect your own timeline in a way you can observe when you get back, but "the universe" will prevent you from altering it in a way that would stop you from going back in the first place.
b) Your actions affect the timeline you're in, but not the one you came from, splitting the timeline into an alternate universe.
I like 2 b the best, for various reasons. First of all, there is mathematical evidence suggesting alternate universes, and theories built upon the notion that there exists a complete universe for every possibility there is. Second, I like the idea of free will and free choice.
Let's say you go back and you kill your grandfather before your father is conceived. In the classic "grandfather paradox" this would not be possible, as it would eliminate you from the timeline and thus you hadn't gone back to kill your grandfather which would then have your father, so you were born and you went back to kill your grandfather... an endless cycle of contradictions. However... based on 2 b, you COULD go back and kill your grandfather. It would not affect you directly, as your actions simply spawned an alternate universe, in which your father was never born, and therefore neither were you. Or perhaps no spawning was needed. Perhaps that alternate universe already existed and the timeline in which your father was murdered by you had already happened in that version, so you were meant to go back in time in order to create that possibility for the alternate universe. In which case we're back to a variation of option 1, where you have no choice...
If we were to assume a split in the timeline, which timeline would you go back to? The one from which you came, or the one you spawned by your actions? Wouldn't the mere presence of you in the spawned, alternate timeline be a paradox if you were never born in that timeline? What if you go back to the wrong timeline and there are now two of you?
A person can go nuts thinking about this stuff - some say I already have...
Yes, the programmers may have less to do if they're not all writing the same code separately, but is that reason enough not to adapt to a better business model? There will always be new stuff to write. If the companies didn't spend fortunes independently writing the same stuff, perhaps they could create something completely new and revolutionary with the same pool of programmers.
To me, keeping the source closed and forcing each company to write their own, just to protect the programmer sounds a lot like the government handouts for farmers who grow something that is not needed, in order to protect their jobs.
why would you respond to a suggestion that 13% is statistically relevant in this case. Because it was statistically relevant that the number was skewed, and I felt it needed to be pointed out. If you have a problem with that, you're an idiot.
If you're gonna be rude and obnoxious, don't hide behind anonymity, you moron. Have to balls to attack someone using your own identity, or perhaps you knew you were trolling and didn't want to get modded down... in which case, the coward part is perfecly appropriate.
And yes, a banana tree could not do a worse job than Bush, mainly because a banana tree is incapable of making decisions, and will therefore not make any wrong ones. 99% of Bush's decisions so far have been the wrong ones. The 1% includes his decision to condemn the very thing that got him his Yale diploma, legacy admissions.
more than 13% people think it is crap (awful) Most of those votes were made before the film even opened, by dittoheads who hate Michael Moore and most of whom haven't even seen it.
Are you talking about worst "bad" movie or worst "good" movie, because there are two categories here.
The "bad" category is simply that, bad. It's the movies everyone loves to hate, such as Plan 9 From Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, The Postman, Glen or Glenda, Glitter, Gigli etc.
The "good" category is more complicated, but it's also a lot more fun (or more infuriating). It's the movies that were overhyped. Movies that may have won awards or broken box office records. Still, watching them is practically unbearable to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. My list would of course have to include Armageddon, Pearl Harbor (or just every Michael Bay film), Men In Black 2, Godzilla and that overcooked turkey of last year: Cold Mountain.
So, if I have to pick one from each, Battlefield Earth and Cold Mountain.
BE was awful in every way, and nobody made any excuses for it (well, Travolta did, but what do you expect). CM was horrifyingly awful and yet Miramax spent millions buying Renee Zellweger an Oscar (which in reality had more to do with her previous two non-winning nominiations than it did Cold Mountain). It was overdirected, overwritten, overacted (really badly by some), overproduced and just over-everything...
In any case... those are my choices.
Re:Movie Fans . question.
on
Primer
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Usually, they get assistants and interns to view submissions (there can be thousands). That is... they view the submissions that interest them after reading the synopsis. They don't approve or disapprove a submission, but they make recommendations to the committees, who then view a handful of submissions and choose from those. A lot of times they don't even view the whole film, just parts of it. If you know someone there it also helps (I've seen enough Sundance rejects that were better than the ones accepted to know quality is not necessarily a deciding factor). Basically, like every other film festival - there's a lot of politics involved. At least... this is what I've heard. If anyone here has evidence to the contrary, please post it, I'd like to know.
Most of the stuff you see in the teaser was shot in Iceland back in March. The Icelandic crew had to sign confidentiality agreements, so details are sketchy.
I know the subtitle is "news for nerds" but this is stretching it.
What's next? The 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon getting posted every time it can be linked to LOTR or some other nerdfest?
Re:off topic on latin abbreviations
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 1
gimme a break haven't you ever accidentally hit the wrong key while typing
i know my "et al" thank you
and what's with the ampersand lesson have you heard of staying on topic
sheesh there's just no pleasing some people
ps i intentionally left out all capitals and punctuation in this message just to irritate you
Re:Eat food?
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You're joking, right?
Here, I'll say it... and my face is as straight as they come.
MoveOn.org is NOT motivated by their hatred of Bush.
Sure, many MoveOn.org members hate Bush and what he stands for. But it's not like he hasn't given them ample reason.
MoveOn.org is motivated by their members' common love of personal and social freedom. Something Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft at al are systematically and carefully trying taking away from anyone whose opinion differs from theirs ("you're either with us or against us" remember).
I guess if you only have a "half a brain" your view may be a little skewed. I have a whole brain, and I know the truth.
Icant@tell.ya is usually the one I use... and noneofyour@business.com is another. Although sometimes I will dig up the billing or administrative contact on the domain for the website that's asking for my email address and use that (gotta love whois), and that's usually if the site is being unusually annoying in it's demand for "required" form fields.
Yeah, somehow I don't see this puny 1.3ghz processor playing any of my 1080i.TS files anytime soon... My 2.6 has no problem at all, but my old 1.7 chokes on them. Having used the 933mhz C3 VIA and seeing it drop frames on anything bigger than 320x240 Xvid, I have my doubts about this HDTV claim... Also, I don't see a DVI or CV output on this thing, so am I to assume they want us to buy the seriously flawed ATI HDTV adapter for HDTV output?
2010 had the benefit of great source material, but it still sucked.
Capricorn One I thought was great when I first saw it... but of course I was like, eight at the time. I saw it on cable not to long ago and I thought it was complete rubbish. The idea was OK, but it was just simply a bad movie.
Timecop did NOT handle time travel aspects well at all, there were logic holes big enough to fly a fleet of space shuttles through. I remember being seriously pissed off after seeing it because it insulted my intelligence as an audience member. I tried watching it again recently on cable, and I had to stop. Not even looking at the beautiful Mia Sara and Gloria Reuben made it bearable.
And in that you are correct. However, if it branches out, then your timeline (the one you came from) would remain intact. Here that is clearly not the case. Which is why the idea of a "time wave" which catches up with your timeline a little bit... just enough to make you notice that it's different, but not enough to completely wipe out humanity, thereby giving you "time" (isn't that ironic) to undo the damage, before the "time wave" fully catches up wit you. No doubt the scientists in the film will be able to calculate exactly when that happens, just so they can give us the suspenseful third act leading to the climax, when a scientist has to disable a device, right before the counter reaches zero, by cutting either the red or the green wire - but it's dark and he only has night vision goggles which makes them look the same.
The branching theory is a nice alternative in order to "fix" the grandfather paradox. In fact, evidence exists suggesting parallel universes, so if we assume for sake of argument, that you could go back in time, and you killed your own grandfather before your father was conceived, thereby erasing your existance and creating the paradox, then YOUR universe might not be the one affected... you could in fact have enabled events taking place in a parallel universe, not your own... but I'm just speculating now...
Of course, the universe wouldn't self destruct if a paradox occurred. Rather, "nature" would prevent you from causing a paradox. Thereby, you wouldn't be able to kill your grandfather, for whatever reason. Nature would see to it. If the nature of the universe allows for timetravel, then I'm sure there are limitations as to what effect it can have on the rest of the universe.
Yeah... and by applying that logic you could say that the guy that directed Bad Taste and Meet the Feelbes probably wasn't the best pick to direct LOTR...
I take exception to that comparison. Those were his first two films. Hyams has a long resume of movies ranging from bad to worse. At least Jackson had Heavenly Creatures on his.
Not only have they completely missed the point of the story, they've come up with some lame ass idea in order to make an action film out of it. The story additions don't make any sense - he wipes out humanity, so they must go back to fix it? Well, if he wiped out humanity, who is it that's going to go back exactly? And if he wiped out humanity, that's a paradox! He would have to exist in order to go back and screw up the timeline. Of course, they solve this by using a "time wave" which hasn't caught up with our time yet (then, how did were they able to travel back?). But if it hasn't caught up, how come their reality is "markedly different"? This is a classic screenwriting short cut. This is the writer forcing the story to serve his master (director, producer or simply his own ego) rather than letting the story play itself out based on the setup and the characters. This is just a plot device not meant to be thought about too much... well, that's fine in a Britney Spears movie, but we're talking Bradbury here. This is a science fiction story. Science fiction stories are meant to be thought about. That's the whole point! They're not about ray-guns and futuristic technology. They're metaphors for things in OUR lives. They're about people, not technology. The technology is just a tool.
Of course, having seen the horrible Timecop, I know just how much Peter Hyams cares about logic and people in his movies, so this is not a particularly surprising turn of events.
However, I will not be spending a dime to see this movie. This is something I will download and proudly announce to the world that I did so just to protest the butchering of the story.
I would gladly shell out $10 to see this story on the big screen, if it was done by ANYONE other than Hyams, who seems to have a particular fetish for destroying Science Fiction as a genre (Capricorn One, Outland, 2010, Timecop, The Relic, End of Days). This guy hasn't made a single tolerable SciFi movie, and THIS is the guy filming one of the great sci-fi short stories of all time?
they want to replace secularism with a system where everyone is forced to obey one brand of Islam Extremism is always bad regardless of what it refers to, hence the word EXTREMISM. I'm sure John Ashcroft (who spent $7000 of tax-payer money to cover up the breast of a naked statue of Lady Liberty, because it offended his religious beliefs) and George Bush (who supports public schools teaching Creationism - one of the most ridiculous fairy tales ever written - as well as school prayer) would have no problem supporting a constitutional amendment making Christianity the state sanctioned religion.
do not worship the Muslim god
Same god, different prophet.
It may frustrate you, but it is quite true.
Not so fast, buster. Sure, they don't like the fact that we're technically open to other religions, despite printing "In God We Trust" on our currency and making witnesses swear on the Bible in courts of law, and we change a pledge to include the words "under God". But guess what! Turns out former President George H. W. Bush is so full of religious tolerance, he states that Atheists are not citizens and not patriots. And he's not even the religious one in the family!
Here's a very simplified list of why they hate us: 1. US Foreign policy has always been: "what's in it for us?" and we make many deals and decisions that affect the middle east negatively. 2. We claim to love democracy, but we help overthrow democratic governments if we think the replacement will be more benefitial to us, even when the replacement is a dictator deals with terrorists in order to get our oil fix. 4. We don't want to seem soft, so when we're hit by an ally, we strike back at a former ally who's now an enemy with a debilitated military which made him an easy target. In the words of Chris Rock: "If they were such a threat to us, how come it only took us two weeks to take over the whole f**king country?!"
Slashdot Mirror
Well, despite that ruling, the SCOTUS is still wrong on that issue. 4 of the 9 judges did not agree with this ruling, and neither do I.
You have a right to be secure in your person or in your house, and that of course includes not giving your name if asked.
I saw the video of that case, and the police was out of line, and the officers involved should be relieved of their duties.
But going back to the original issue, the only thing you can compare this to, would be a law requiring all street vendors to put their real name and address on every counterfit CD/DVD/VHS they sell.
It's a stacking law... it's a ridiculous law passed to make something which is already illegal more illegal... by having you commit multiple crimes instead of one, they can achieve a higher guilty rate, by offering to drop the other charges if you plead guilty to one count.
I think it's ridiculous having a law which requires you to identify yourself when you do something illegal, even if nobody knows you broke the law, and even if nobody cought you. Why not just enforce the laws already on the books?
What's next? A law which requires you to turn yourself in whenever you commit a crime and don't get caught? I mean, based on this, why the hell not? That way theyll have a second charge of "not confessing to a crime" they can then drop if the accused confesses to the real crime. Same logic at work...
This whole thing is just absurd to the nth degree.
Groundbreaking is a perfectly apt description for this film, in every sense of the word, and yes, it can be used about something other than construction jobs.
Think of what the word means, and implies.
Groundbreaking, as in breaking ground... the first to successfully do something new which will be mimicked and built upon by future generations and will inspire an entire generation of those who want to do something similar.
Breaking ground in the world of cinema, is the first successful attempt at something that has not been done before but will lead to others doing the same.
As far as visual effects goes films such as 2001, Star Wars, The Abyss, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Toy Story, Shrek or any of the Ray Harryhousen projects, were all groundbreaking in their own right and in their own way.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is groundbreaking. It's the first successful attempt at entirely eliminating practical sets and locations.
Star Wars Episode 1 and a few others have successfully used CGI sets for a number of shots, but they still used practical sets.
The technology itself was groundbreaking back then, and to many still is. However, the full scale application of it here in a big budget film (which is an enormous risk), is what's groundbreaking.
Forget Playboy... it's softcore (read: boring).
When will we get Hustler TV? Or SCORE TV? A real, no holes barred, hardcore porn channel with closeups, penetration and moneyshots?
How about a 24hr Pussyman marathon?
Why is it that a $10 PPV version of a porno shows almost nothing, when a $3 rented dvd version of the same porno is a full blown version that shows everything?
Since when do the FCC decency regulations apply to closed circuit PAID TV? And on that subject, who's idea of decency is the gold standard? What happened to the 1st Amendment?
What's wrong with these people?
If I want to watch boring softcore crap, I can turn on Cinemax...
My thoughts...
I have an HDTV and 1080i looks incredible, with the exception of fast moving video shot at 1080i, because the 4:2:0 color compression screws it up, and creates color banding and unwanted blending. If you watch 1080i originated material frame by frame in MPEG2 format, in fast scenes the color information is sometimes a frame ahead of the fast moving object... quite obvious when you pause the HD TiVo, but hardly noticable at all at 59.94 fields per second.
The main reason 1080i is used and not 1080p, is because it allows for two progressive fields of 540p/59.94 which are then split up into an interlaced picture of 1080i allowing for smoother motion.
I love 1080p/24 material, having shot and worked with it myself. I'm not as thrilled with 1080i, but it still looks fantastic.
If TV as you know it is analog, then yes, Digital TV will be the end of TV a we know it, but it doesn't suck. The only thing that does suck, are cable companies not utilizing the full 19.4Mbps bandwidth. Most of the ones I have are closer to 9 or 10Mbps, and in high action sequences the mpeg just falls apart on the most compressed channels. PBS and DiscoveryHD usually have the best quality, but HBO is hopelessly compressed and since the compression is done in hardware, in real time, it can look awful in fast action scenes, while slow scenes still look acceptable.
Converting 480i to 480p isn't as graceful as you make it sound. I do this sort of stuff for a living, and there is no justification for "mice teeth" in video, ever. If you have to convert to progressive, far better to use interpolation filters during encoding, rather than using bob or weave in the receiver.
Interlacing, while it definitely does suck on projected images, is still a good idea for TVs and you're wrong, it was not used as a cheap analog way of compressing the signal at a 1:2 ratio. It was used as a way to get rid of flicker on your TV.
30 frames per second simply isn't fast enough when shown on a CRT Tube. The image has a very noticable flicker. Using 60 fields, and showing them interlaced, promptly doubled the number of pictures visible on screen, and cut the flicker in half. It's still visible if you look, but for the most part, it's fine. Unless of course you have a very big TV, but then again, the NTSC standard was never meant to be seen on anything bigger than 12" anyway.
I have an HDTV CRT, as well as a projector. If I don't de-interlace the signal that goes into my projector, it doesn't look very appetizing on a 100" projected image. However, my HDTV looks perfectly natural, as it uses scanlines natively.
Material shot and produced on HD looks fantastic at 1080i, in its uncompressed state. The problem here is the 4:2:0 color compression of MPEG2, not the resolution. In fact, you'll see exactly the same kind of problems in PAL DV cameras (they also use 4:2:0, whereas NTSC DV cameras use 4:1:1 and don't have the color banding issues).
What you have to consider, are the benefits of each format. 720p has fewer lines, but at the same time can afford more bandwidth per frame. 1080i splits the signal in half in order to send the same bitrate without losing too much image quality, but suffers the color banding effect on 59.94i material, while still looking sensational on material originating at 24p or even 30p.
Upconverting 720p to 1080i isn't as bad as you make it sound. Mostly because they have the same amount of pictures per second. 720p doesn't use 59.94 full images per second, it uses 29.97 images per second that are then shown twice on your 720p capable TV set (shown twice to eliminate flickering). Thus, when converting to 1080i, each 720 is first blown up to 1080, and then split into two 540 line chunks, which are then interlaced on your screen. Since the motion is exactly the same in both fields, you are pretty much seeing a full 1080 picture, even though the source was 720 and thus not as sharp as 1080p.
This resolution takes up less bandwidth than does 1080i, and
Well, yes and no.
I completely see your point, and I could even agree with it, if this was a case of someone coming out with a better technology, making your technology obsolete without destroying it.
However... this is a case of someone deliberately designing a product that counteracts yours, thereby making yours not just obsolete, but useless. Some might see that as sabotage.
Although, you could probably stretch this reasoning to allow gun manufacturers to sue makers of bullet-proof vests... so I certainly understand how this would be difficult.
But I hope you get my point.
Personally, I think this should be illegal.
Caller ID is there for a reason.
If you don't want people to know who's calling, you can turn it off, which is perfectly fine, but I don't think you should have the right to impersonate someone else's instead.
Couldn't agree more.
This paragraph stood out, and I was gonna write something about it if nobody else had...
So, basically, they're jumping on the SCO bandwagon blaming "anarchist hippies" for their F'd up business model.
What did they expect? Civilians greeting them as liberators throwing flowers at them? No, wait... wrong discussion for that line.
Personally, I think death threats are going too far, but loud complaints are in order, and should be expected.
In fact, a service such as this one, should upset the makers of Caller ID equipment more than it does regular folks, as this basically makes the technology obsolete and takes us back to the days before Caller ID. Any phone company charging their customers extra for Caller ID could possibly have a case against the company over lost revenue.
Basically, the way I see it, if we were to assume physical time travel was possible, there could be only two basic possibilities here, from the basis of which there are lots of variations.
1. your presence in the past was already in your timeline and therefore you had no choice but to go, which opens up a whole slew of philosophical questions, as you not going would be a paradox which would directly affect your own timeline.
2. your precense in the past was NOT in your timeline and thus there must be consequences:
I like 2 b the best, for various reasons.
First of all, there is mathematical evidence suggesting alternate universes, and theories built upon the notion that there exists a complete universe for every possibility there is.
Second, I like the idea of free will and free choice.
Let's say you go back and you kill your grandfather before your father is conceived.
In the classic "grandfather paradox" this would not be possible, as it would eliminate you from the timeline and thus you hadn't gone back to kill your grandfather which would then have your father, so you were born and you went back to kill your grandfather... an endless cycle of contradictions.
However... based on 2 b, you COULD go back and kill your grandfather. It would not affect you directly, as your actions simply spawned an alternate universe, in which your father was never born, and therefore neither were you.
Or perhaps no spawning was needed. Perhaps that alternate universe already existed and the timeline in which your father was murdered by you had already happened in that version, so you were meant to go back in time in order to create that possibility for the alternate universe. In which case we're back to a variation of option 1, where you have no choice...
If we were to assume a split in the timeline, which timeline would you go back to? The one from which you came, or the one you spawned by your actions? Wouldn't the mere presence of you in the spawned, alternate timeline be a paradox if you were never born in that timeline?
What if you go back to the wrong timeline and there are now two of you?
A person can go nuts thinking about this stuff - some say I already have...
Hollywood executives aren't the only ones who do the same thing over and over... now Slashdot does it too!
Previous version of this story here
You're right, but still wrong.
Yes, the programmers may have less to do if they're not all writing the same code separately, but is that reason enough not to adapt to a better business model?
There will always be new stuff to write. If the companies didn't spend fortunes independently writing the same stuff, perhaps they could create something completely new and revolutionary with the same pool of programmers.
To me, keeping the source closed and forcing each company to write their own, just to protect the programmer sounds a lot like the government handouts for farmers who grow something that is not needed, in order to protect their jobs.
We must consider the greater good.
why would you respond to a suggestion that 13% is statistically relevant in this case.
Because it was statistically relevant that the number was skewed, and I felt it needed to be pointed out. If you have a problem with that, you're an idiot.
If you're gonna be rude and obnoxious, don't hide behind anonymity, you moron. Have to balls to attack someone using your own identity, or perhaps you knew you were trolling and didn't want to get modded down... in which case, the coward part is perfecly appropriate.
And yes, a banana tree could not do a worse job than Bush, mainly because a banana tree is incapable of making decisions, and will therefore not make any wrong ones.
99% of Bush's decisions so far have been the wrong ones. The 1% includes his decision to condemn the very thing that got him his Yale diploma, legacy admissions.
more than 13% people think it is crap (awful)
Most of those votes were made before the film even opened, by dittoheads who hate Michael Moore and most of whom haven't even seen it.
Are you talking about worst "bad" movie or worst "good" movie, because there are two categories here.
The "bad" category is simply that, bad. It's the movies everyone loves to hate, such as Plan 9 From Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, The Postman, Glen or Glenda, Glitter, Gigli etc.
The "good" category is more complicated, but it's also a lot more fun (or more infuriating). It's the movies that were overhyped. Movies that may have won awards or broken box office records. Still, watching them is practically unbearable to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
My list would of course have to include Armageddon, Pearl Harbor (or just every Michael Bay film), Men In Black 2, Godzilla and that overcooked turkey of last year: Cold Mountain.
So, if I have to pick one from each,
Battlefield Earth and Cold Mountain.
BE was awful in every way, and nobody made any excuses for it (well, Travolta did, but what do you expect).
CM was horrifyingly awful and yet Miramax spent millions buying Renee Zellweger an Oscar (which in reality had more to do with her previous two non-winning nominiations than it did Cold Mountain). It was overdirected, overwritten, overacted (really badly by some), overproduced and just over-everything...
In any case... those are my choices.
Usually, they get assistants and interns to view submissions (there can be thousands).
That is... they view the submissions that interest them after reading the synopsis.
They don't approve or disapprove a submission, but they make recommendations to the committees, who then view a handful of submissions and choose from those.
A lot of times they don't even view the whole film, just parts of it.
If you know someone there it also helps (I've seen enough Sundance rejects that were better than the ones accepted to know quality is not necessarily a deciding factor).
Basically, like every other film festival - there's a lot of politics involved.
At least... this is what I've heard.
If anyone here has evidence to the contrary, please post it, I'd like to know.
Most of the stuff you see in the teaser was shot in Iceland back in March.
The Icelandic crew had to sign confidentiality agreements, so details are sketchy.
How do I moderate an original post as Off-Topic?
I know the subtitle is "news for nerds" but this is stretching it.
What's next? The 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon getting posted every time it can be linked to LOTR or some other nerdfest?
gimme a break
haven't you ever accidentally hit the wrong key while typing
i know my "et al" thank you
and what's with the ampersand lesson
have you heard of staying on topic
sheesh there's just no pleasing some people
ps i intentionally left out all capitals and punctuation in this message just to irritate you
You're joking, right?
Here, I'll say it... and my face is as straight as they come.
MoveOn.org is NOT motivated by their hatred of Bush.
Sure, many MoveOn.org members hate Bush and what he stands for. But it's not like he hasn't given them ample reason.
MoveOn.org is motivated by their members' common love of personal and social freedom. Something Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft at al are systematically and carefully trying taking away from anyone whose opinion differs from theirs ("you're either with us or against us" remember).
I guess if you only have a "half a brain" your view may be a little skewed. I have a whole brain, and I know the truth.
Actually, the 1 Billionth Windows Virus came out a few years ago.
I believe it was called W32:Bllnth.vrs@ms
Icant@tell.ya is usually the one I use... and noneofyour@business.com is another.
Although sometimes I will dig up the billing or administrative contact on the domain for the website that's asking for my email address and use that (gotta love whois), and that's usually if the site is being unusually annoying in it's demand for "required" form fields.
Yeah, somehow I don't see this puny 1.3ghz processor playing any of my 1080i .TS files anytime soon... My 2.6 has no problem at all, but my old 1.7 chokes on them.
Having used the 933mhz C3 VIA and seeing it drop frames on anything bigger than 320x240 Xvid, I have my doubts about this HDTV claim...
Also, I don't see a DVI or CV output on this thing, so am I to assume they want us to buy the seriously flawed ATI HDTV adapter for HDTV output?
2010 had the benefit of great source material, but it still sucked.
Capricorn One I thought was great when I first saw it... but of course I was like, eight at the time.
I saw it on cable not to long ago and I thought it was complete rubbish. The idea was OK, but it was just simply a bad movie.
Timecop did NOT handle time travel aspects well at all, there were logic holes big enough to fly a fleet of space shuttles through.
I remember being seriously pissed off after seeing it because it insulted my intelligence as an audience member. I tried watching it again recently on cable, and I had to stop. Not even looking at the beautiful Mia Sara and Gloria Reuben made it bearable.
And in that you are correct.
However, if it branches out, then your timeline (the one you came from) would remain intact.
Here that is clearly not the case.
Which is why the idea of a "time wave" which catches up with your timeline a little bit... just enough to make you notice that it's different, but not enough to completely wipe out humanity, thereby giving you "time" (isn't that ironic) to undo the damage, before the "time wave" fully catches up wit you. No doubt the scientists in the film will be able to calculate exactly when that happens, just so they can give us the suspenseful third act leading to the climax, when a scientist has to disable a device, right before the counter reaches zero, by cutting either the red or the green wire - but it's dark and he only has night vision goggles which makes them look the same.
The branching theory is a nice alternative in order to "fix" the grandfather paradox. In fact, evidence exists suggesting parallel universes, so if we assume for sake of argument, that you could go back in time, and you killed your own grandfather before your father was conceived, thereby erasing your existance and creating the paradox, then YOUR universe might not be the one affected... you could in fact have enabled events taking place in a parallel universe, not your own... but I'm just speculating now...
Of course, the universe wouldn't self destruct if a paradox occurred. Rather, "nature" would prevent you from causing a paradox. Thereby, you wouldn't be able to kill your grandfather, for whatever reason. Nature would see to it.
If the nature of the universe allows for timetravel, then I'm sure there are limitations as to what effect it can have on the rest of the universe.
Yeah... and by applying that logic you could say that the guy that directed Bad Taste and Meet the Feelbes probably wasn't the best pick to direct LOTR...
I take exception to that comparison.
Those were his first two films.
Hyams has a long resume of movies ranging from bad to worse.
At least Jackson had Heavenly Creatures on his.
Has anyone read up on this?
Not only have they completely missed the point of the story, they've come up with some lame ass idea in order to make an action film out of it.
The story additions don't make any sense - he wipes out humanity, so they must go back to fix it? Well, if he wiped out humanity, who is it that's going to go back exactly? And if he wiped out humanity, that's a paradox! He would have to exist in order to go back and screw up the timeline.
Of course, they solve this by using a "time wave" which hasn't caught up with our time yet (then, how did were they able to travel back?).
But if it hasn't caught up, how come their reality is "markedly different"?
This is a classic screenwriting short cut. This is the writer forcing the story to serve his master (director, producer or simply his own ego) rather than letting the story play itself out based on the setup and the characters. This is just a plot device not meant to be thought about too much... well, that's fine in a Britney Spears movie, but we're talking Bradbury here. This is a science fiction story. Science fiction stories are meant to be thought about. That's the whole point! They're not about ray-guns and futuristic technology. They're metaphors for things in OUR lives. They're about people, not technology. The technology is just a tool.
Of course, having seen the horrible Timecop, I know just how much Peter Hyams cares about logic and people in his movies, so this is not a particularly surprising turn of events.
However, I will not be spending a dime to see this movie. This is something I will download and proudly announce to the world that I did so just to protest the butchering of the story.
I would gladly shell out $10 to see this story on the big screen, if it was done by ANYONE other than Hyams, who seems to have a particular fetish for destroying Science Fiction as a genre (Capricorn One, Outland, 2010, Timecop, The Relic, End of Days). This guy hasn't made a single tolerable SciFi movie, and THIS is the guy filming one of the great sci-fi short stories of all time?
they want to replace secularism with a system where everyone is forced to obey one brand of Islam
Extremism is always bad regardless of what it refers to, hence the word EXTREMISM. I'm sure John Ashcroft (who spent $7000 of tax-payer money to cover up the breast of a naked statue of Lady Liberty, because it offended his religious beliefs) and George Bush (who supports public schools teaching Creationism - one of the most ridiculous fairy tales ever written - as well as school prayer) would have no problem supporting a constitutional amendment making Christianity the state sanctioned religion.
do not worship the Muslim god
Same god, different prophet.
It may frustrate you, but it is quite true.
Not so fast, buster. Sure, they don't like the fact that we're technically open to other religions, despite printing "In God We Trust" on our currency and making witnesses swear on the Bible in courts of law, and we change a pledge to include the words "under God".
But guess what! Turns out former President George H. W. Bush is so full of religious tolerance, he states that Atheists are not citizens and not patriots.
And he's not even the religious one in the family!
Here's a very simplified list of why they hate us:
1. US Foreign policy has always been: "what's in it for us?" and we make many deals and decisions that affect the middle east negatively.
2. We claim to love democracy, but we help overthrow democratic governments if we think the replacement will be more benefitial to us, even when the replacement is a dictator deals with terrorists in order to get our oil fix.
4. We don't want to seem soft, so when we're hit by an ally, we strike back at a former ally who's now an enemy with a debilitated military which made him an easy target. In the words of Chris Rock: "If they were such a threat to us, how come it only took us two weeks to take over the whole f**king country?!"
Recommended reading: Why do they hate us?