While the phones may run linux/java... I would not expect the phone companies to let you create your own apps and upload them to the phone.
Why not? People are already doing that with Nokias Symbian-phones for example. Why would the phone-company be interested what software you run on your phone? Well, maybe it's different in US but here (Finland and rest of Europe) that isn't the case.
FYI: Kaurismäki doesn't hold USA in high regard, and he pretty much despises the Oscar-committee (or whatever it's called). He is a bit anti-social even towards people he doesn't hate:)
* Engineers are the center of the Universe. They get to pick the coordinate system.
Well, you could say that I'm in the center of the Universe. Since Universe doesn't really have limits as such, the point in space I'm at has equal distance to the borders of the Universe in all directions. Therefore I'm in the cetner of the Universe. But then again, that means that everyone is at the center of the Universe in the same time.
Hey, up to you, though. Some folks like having the latest and greatest--that's part of the thrill. What sucks is when someone else comes in 9 months later and buys the same capability for half the price...
Welcome to the world of computers. That is a fact, learn to live with it.
And I don't buy the absolutely state of the art components. Orice on those is really high. But I don't really go to the low-end either. For example, if I were buying a vid-card right now, I propably would not choose Radeon 9700pro. I would propably get a Radeon 9500pro. Good performance, less price. And I don't upgrade often. My current machine (700MHz Duron @ 840Mhz, GF2 GTS) was bought about 2.5 years ago (if my memory serves me right). After that there hasn't been any upgrades (well, I did get two additional sticks of RAM)
That is waisting money. The economical way to buy cpu/motherboards is to buy "low end" CPU's every 12 - 18 months. The the $400 dollar CPU is $50 dollars 12 months later.
While it might be economical, it may not be smart. That low-end CPU might be good at running older software well, but how about newer software? New software demand more and more from CPU's, they might be affected negatively by choosing a slower CPU.
But, like I said in my other reply, I don't buy absolute top-of-the-line CPU's since the price is rally high when compared to the performance they offer. I would rather buy a CPU that is step or two below the current top-model. Performance is still really good, but the price is alot lower.
Do you actually buy computer products with the full expectation of not needing the power until years down the road?
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that I could use 3+GHz computer right now. It would make compiling faster, I could run games at higher settings (assuming the vid-card is similar calibre to the CPU), I could make.ogg and mp3-files faster etc. etc. So of course that CPU-power would not be wasted. What I meant was that down the road when software starts to use more CPU-power, my COU is still uo to the task. Had I chosen a slower CPU, I might need to upgrade.
FYI, my current CPU is 700MHz Duron overclocked to 840MHz. I bought it about 2.5 years ago (if I remember correctly). It is starting to show it's age, but I'm holding out as long as I can. When I upgrade (thinking about either Hammer or Prescott right now), I will NOT buy the absolute top-of-the-line CPU, since the price on those is astronomical. But I will not buy a cheap CPU either. My next CPU will be near the top of the performance-charts, but it will not be at the absolute top.
The vast majority of people don't need the P4 3GHZ
While RIGHT NOW we have limited use for such monster-CPU's, what about tomorrow? When I buy a computer, I don't look at what things I would be doing with it today, I would also think what I would be doing with it in the future. While 3+GHz might be overkill right now, is it overkill few years down the road?
Sure, I could get a slower and cheaper CPU. But it would get obsolete sooner. If I buy faster CPU, it will be fast enough longer period of time (and as a bonus, I will enjoy the increased performance while the slower CPU would just be "fast enough". If I could shave some time off my compile-times or encoding-times, I'm all for it!).
you know this or you're speculating? i can't imagine that after all of the detail on the shire in FOTR, there won't even be a return to it in an epilogue or something....:(
I know it. For starters they mention this in the commentary of the EE-edition of FOTR. I don't know how ROTK will end, but I know it will not have the destruction of the Shire
Again, I fail to see how the movie could get so good reviews if it just had mediocre SFX. They are reviewing _the movie_, not the SFX. If the SFX were good, while everything else was mediocre, they would have preaised the SFX, flamed everything else and they would have given the movie poor reviews (ID4 anyone?). They did not do that, why? Could it be that it really is a good movie?
But, to amuse you:
"Peter Jackson and company once again dazzle and delight us, fulfilling practically every expectation either a longtime Tolkien fan or a movie-going neophyte could want."
"Spectacular in every sense of the word, even if you don' t know an Orc from a Uruk-Hai."
"Yes, there are some 'middle-chapter' problems, but Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptation hasn't lost its devastating humanity, its heart-stopping cinematography or its epic sweep."
"This film doesn't change my review of the original, but it does have me eagerly looking forward to the final installment. I liked it a lot!"
"The most incredible accomplishment of Towers is that at its heart it is a transition film that lasts nearly three hours and holds the viewer's attention."
"This is one case where you can actually believe the hype -- The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is indeed even better than its predecessor."
"Yeah, these flicks are just that damn good. Isn't it great?"
"The gorgeously elaborate continuation of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is so huge that a column of words cannot adequately describe co-writer/director Peter Jackson's expanded vision of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth."
Again, I fail to see how they could have given it as good reviews as they did if TTT is nothing more than a mediocre movie wrapped in some nice SFX. Looking at the summaries of the reviews, there were few that commented of the SFX, but I saw even more summaries telling how awesome the movie is.
Ok reread what I said please. I said the reviewers ARE praising it but mostly for the effects.
I have no problems reading what you wrote. You claim that the reviewers praise TTT SFX, while thinking that the movie itself is mediocre at best. While I have seen few bad reviews, most have praised the movie, _and not just the SFX_! If TTT was just good SFX with mediocre story and acting, how could it get 97% on rottentomatoes.com? Sure all those critics would see beyond the SFX. But apparently 97% of them think that it's a _good movie_ not just mediocre movie with good SFX.
Reviews counted: 189 Fresh: 184 Rotten: 5 Average Rating: 8.6/10
184 good reviews, 5 bad reviews. Yeah, the movie obviously sucks.
Changes are one thing; Completely changing the nature of major characters, turning them (both Gimli and Faramir) into a parody of themselves and their race, is to do an injustice to the work of J.R.R. Tolkien;
Again, they had a good reason for the changes. Why change Gimli in TTT? Without Gimli, it would have been really dark movie. They needed some comic relief, and Gimli provided it.
The purpose of the movie is to bring the books to the silver screen. And they have succeeded. But changes are necessary (yes, in characters too).
And, in the end, most people are more than happy with the end-results, Tolkien-fans included! Of course, considering the importance of the books and the scale of the movies, there are (of course) people who are unhappy with the movies. But most people are happy with the results.
Yes, there are changes. Yes, in the end those changes are needed and they have good reasons for those changes.
which is what makes Peter Jackson a fucking idiot.
And I'm sure you would have made alot better movie? For some reason, I doubt it. And you are in the minority on this case.
I think the first movie was far far short of what they could have been.
I know one Tolkien-fan (I consider myself to be one as well) who was seriously disappointed with FOTR:s theatrical release. Then he saw the Extended Edition, and his opinion changed completely. He loved it and gave it 10/10 points. May I suggest that you go see the EE as well?
when the balrog's whip snares Gandalf, they have a whole ten seconds to help him but Aragorn instead restrains Frodo
Of course. After all, Frodo was the most important person of the group, and he was about to rush to the bridge (that could collapse at any minute) to save Gandalf. Of course Aragorn stopped him. They actually talk about this in the commentary of the EE. The reason they didn't rush to the bridge was that the bridge could have collapsed. The changes are not "irrational", they have very good reasons to do 'em.
I have read the story of Beren and Luthien (altrough it was several years ago).
I have read the books (meaning LOTR) about... 15 times or so. Add to that Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Book of Unfinished Tales (each several times) and the host of books about Tolkien, LOTR and Middle-Earth... So I would say that your guess is just flat-out wrong.
Half of the scenes were completely changed (which disfigured many of the characters), and a couple of the scenes weren't even in the book at all.
They had good reason for the changes. No huorns? Why waste time introducing yet another group of characters, that will be completely forgotten after their 15 minutes of fame are up? The movies are filled with characters as it is. And they don't really have the luxury to spend time introducing one character after another.
Aragorn falling over the cliff? It allowed them to explore the Aragorn-Arwen relationship more.
Again: books and movies are different media. What works in the book, may not work in the movie (and vice versa).
By changing so many aspects of the story and characters, it effectively ruins the LOTR story.
How exactly? The biggest complaint I have heard was the changing to Faramir, yet they had a reason for that change as well (in the book, Faramir was too strong, some ways even stronger that Aragorn. They wanted to make him more human). Besides, it allows us to see things that are only vaguely referred to in the book (Mordor/Gondor border-war).
Another change was the moving of Shelob from TTT to ROTK. In ROTK Sam and Frodo don't do much, except walk towards Mount Doom. This change gives them more stuff to do in the third movie. Also, TTT (the book) ends in a cliffhanger. People would go crazy if they had to wait full year to see how it continues.
I think the second movie sucked simply as a movie. It was so disjointed and jumpy.
That's because the book was full of scenes and it too jumped between several groups of people. Since in the movie time is something you are short of, it makes the movie a bit jumpy. I for one would wait for the extended edition of the movie. That should significantly reduce the "jumping around".
It makes me wonder how they'll do the third installment since the ring gets destroyed two-thirds of the way through.
If you are referring to the destruction of the Shire, it will not be in the movie. Why? Because the climax is the destruction of the ring. Having the Shore-thingy in the end would diminsh that climax, and the movie would not end with a bang, but with a whimper. Again, this again boils down to differences between books and movies as a media.
But hey, no-one is forcing you to watch the movies.
Just like the way they killed LoTR. Atleast hope that like in LoTR, they mention that the movie has been inspired from the book, rather than an adaptation.
How exactly did they "kill" LOTR? Like it has been repeatedly said, books and movies are two different media. You simply can NOT make 1:1 copy of a book for the silver screen, espesially not something like LOTR. LOTR the movie (espesially the extended edition) is an excellent adaptation of the book, but it is not 1:1 copy of the book, and to expect it to be an exact copy is unrealistic. When you move a book to the silver screen the will be changes. Learn to live with it.
I see people whining about the movie-adaptation of LOTR, yet no-one give any tangible examples how it should REALLY be done.
can you say: "steel, bananas, oh fuck it, almost everything else!?"
Funny, of the EU vs. US disputes in the WTO, US has lost most of them. You won the bananas, I'll give you that.
And what about the steel? US is using illegal tariffs to shield it's lame steel-industry from foreign competition. In Europe we had a wave of consolidation. Lame companies disappeared, healthier companies merger, alot of money was invested in production-facilities. In US that has not happened. You have old and inefficient steel-mills, companies that are stuggling under debt. That is why they can't compete and that is why they went whining to Washington.
That situation would be fixed if you had a direct vote on the president. The current scheme where the winner in a state gets all the electorals of that state is the reason why supporters of the minority party will see their votes wasted. With direct popular vote, that would not happen.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't. They are just the only organisations that are capable of doing it.
Why not? People are already doing that with Nokias Symbian-phones for example. Why would the phone-company be interested what software you run on your phone? Well, maybe it's different in US but here (Finland and rest of Europe) that isn't the case.
...They remembered to make backup-copies.
Maybe we should just kill the spammers? Preferrably with a rusty spoon.
Hopefukky he wins, we could hear his speech :).
:)
FYI: Kaurismäki doesn't hold USA in high regard, and he pretty much despises the Oscar-committee (or whatever it's called). He is a bit anti-social even towards people he doesn't hate
Well, you could say that I'm in the center of the Universe. Since Universe doesn't really have limits as such, the point in space I'm at has equal distance to the borders of the Universe in all directions. Therefore I'm in the cetner of the Universe. But then again, that means that everyone is at the center of the Universe in the same time.
Well, finns haven't dealed with Earth either, so it will take some time before finns can finnish off the universe. But we are working on it.
Welcome to the world of computers. That is a fact, learn to live with it.
And I don't buy the absolutely state of the art components. Orice on those is really high. But I don't really go to the low-end either. For example, if I were buying a vid-card right now, I propably would not choose Radeon 9700pro. I would propably get a Radeon 9500pro. Good performance, less price. And I don't upgrade often. My current machine (700MHz Duron @ 840Mhz, GF2 GTS) was bought about 2.5 years ago (if my memory serves me right). After that there hasn't been any upgrades (well, I did get two additional sticks of RAM)
While it might be economical, it may not be smart. That low-end CPU might be good at running older software well, but how about newer software? New software demand more and more from CPU's, they might be affected negatively by choosing a slower CPU.
But, like I said in my other reply, I don't buy absolute top-of-the-line CPU's since the price is rally high when compared to the performance they offer. I would rather buy a CPU that is step or two below the current top-model. Performance is still really good, but the price is alot lower.
While RIGHT NOW we have limited use for such monster-CPU's, what about tomorrow? When I buy a computer, I don't look at what things I would be doing with it today, I would also think what I would be doing with it in the future. While 3+GHz might be overkill right now, is it overkill few years down the road?
Sure, I could get a slower and cheaper CPU. But it would get obsolete sooner. If I buy faster CPU, it will be fast enough longer period of time (and as a bonus, I will enjoy the increased performance while the slower CPU would just be "fast enough". If I could shave some time off my compile-times or encoding-times, I'm all for it!).
I know it. For starters they mention this in the commentary of the EE-edition of FOTR. I don't know how ROTK will end, but I know it will not have the destruction of the Shire
Again, I fail to see how the movie could get so good reviews if it just had mediocre SFX. They are reviewing _the movie_, not the SFX. If the SFX were good, while everything else was mediocre, they would have preaised the SFX, flamed everything else and they would have given the movie poor reviews (ID4 anyone?). They did not do that, why? Could it be that it really is a good movie?
But, to amuse you:
"Peter Jackson and company once again dazzle and delight us, fulfilling practically every expectation either a longtime Tolkien fan or a movie-going neophyte could want."
"Spectacular in every sense of the word, even if you don' t know an Orc from a Uruk-Hai."
"Yes, there are some 'middle-chapter' problems, but Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptation hasn't lost its devastating humanity, its heart-stopping cinematography or its epic sweep."
"This film doesn't change my review of the original, but it does have me eagerly looking forward to the final installment. I liked it a lot!"
"The most incredible accomplishment of Towers is that at its heart it is a transition film that lasts nearly three hours and holds the viewer's attention."
"This is one case where you can actually believe the hype -- The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is indeed even better than its predecessor."
"Yeah, these flicks are just that damn good. Isn't it great?"
"The gorgeously elaborate continuation of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is so huge that a column of words cannot adequately describe co-writer/director Peter Jackson's expanded vision of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth."
All from the first page.
Again, I fail to see how they could have given it as good reviews as they did if TTT is nothing more than a mediocre movie wrapped in some nice SFX. Looking at the summaries of the reviews, there were few that commented of the SFX, but I saw even more summaries telling how awesome the movie is.
I have no problems reading what you wrote. You claim that the reviewers praise TTT SFX, while thinking that the movie itself is mediocre at best. While I have seen few bad reviews, most have praised the movie, _and not just the SFX_! If TTT was just good SFX with mediocre story and acting, how could it get 97% on rottentomatoes.com? Sure all those critics would see beyond the SFX. But apparently 97% of them think that it's a _good movie_ not just mediocre movie with good SFX.
Reviews counted: 189
Fresh: 184
Rotten: 5
Average Rating: 8.6/10
184 good reviews, 5 bad reviews. Yeah, the movie obviously sucks.
Again, they had a good reason for the changes. Why change Gimli in TTT? Without Gimli, it would have been really dark movie. They needed some comic relief, and Gimli provided it.
The purpose of the movie is to bring the books to the silver screen. And they have succeeded. But changes are necessary (yes, in characters too).
And, in the end, most people are more than happy with the end-results, Tolkien-fans included! Of course, considering the importance of the books and the scale of the movies, there are (of course) people who are unhappy with the movies. But most people are happy with the results.
Yes, there are changes. Yes, in the end those changes are needed and they have good reasons for those changes.
And I'm sure you would have made alot better movie? For some reason, I doubt it. And you are in the minority on this case.
Really? I must have missed those reviews. Sure there has been few bad reviews, but overwhelming majority of reviews have praised the movies.
I know one Tolkien-fan (I consider myself to be one as well) who was seriously disappointed with FOTR:s theatrical release. Then he saw the Extended Edition, and his opinion changed completely. He loved it and gave it 10/10 points. May I suggest that you go see the EE as well?
Of course. After all, Frodo was the most important person of the group, and he was about to rush to the bridge (that could collapse at any minute) to save Gandalf. Of course Aragorn stopped him. They actually talk about this in the commentary of the EE. The reason they didn't rush to the bridge was that the bridge could have collapsed. The changes are not "irrational", they have very good reasons to do 'em.
I have read the story of Beren and Luthien (altrough it was several years ago).
But you have Patriot I, with II apparently being made.
I have read the books (meaning LOTR) about... 15 times or so. Add to that Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Book of Unfinished Tales (each several times) and the host of books about Tolkien, LOTR and Middle-Earth... So I would say that your guess is just flat-out wrong.
They had good reason for the changes. No huorns? Why waste time introducing yet another group of characters, that will be completely forgotten after their 15 minutes of fame are up? The movies are filled with characters as it is. And they don't really have the luxury to spend time introducing one character after another.
Aragorn falling over the cliff? It allowed them to explore the Aragorn-Arwen relationship more.
Again: books and movies are different media. What works in the book, may not work in the movie (and vice versa).
How exactly? The biggest complaint I have heard was the changing to Faramir, yet they had a reason for that change as well (in the book, Faramir was too strong, some ways even stronger that Aragorn. They wanted to make him more human). Besides, it allows us to see things that are only vaguely referred to in the book (Mordor/Gondor border-war).
Another change was the moving of Shelob from TTT to ROTK. In ROTK Sam and Frodo don't do much, except walk towards Mount Doom. This change gives them more stuff to do in the third movie. Also, TTT (the book) ends in a cliffhanger. People would go crazy if they had to wait full year to see how it continues.
That's because the book was full of scenes and it too jumped between several groups of people. Since in the movie time is something you are short of, it makes the movie a bit jumpy. I for one would wait for the extended edition of the movie. That should significantly reduce the "jumping around".
If you are referring to the destruction of the Shire, it will not be in the movie. Why? Because the climax is the destruction of the ring. Having the Shore-thingy in the end would diminsh that climax, and the movie would not end with a bang, but with a whimper. Again, this again boils down to differences between books and movies as a media.
But hey, no-one is forcing you to watch the movies.
How exactly did they "kill" LOTR? Like it has been repeatedly said, books and movies are two different media. You simply can NOT make 1:1 copy of a book for the silver screen, espesially not something like LOTR. LOTR the movie (espesially the extended edition) is an excellent adaptation of the book, but it is not 1:1 copy of the book, and to expect it to be an exact copy is unrealistic. When you move a book to the silver screen the will be changes. Learn to live with it.
I see people whining about the movie-adaptation of LOTR, yet no-one give any tangible examples how it should REALLY be done.
I was talking about steel-companies. Last time I checked, Sun is not in the steel-business.
Actually, US has a big trade-deficit with Europe, so it could be that there's more money flowing from US to Europe than vice-versa.
Funny, of the EU vs. US disputes in the WTO, US has lost most of them. You won the bananas, I'll give you that.
And what about the steel? US is using illegal tariffs to shield it's lame steel-industry from foreign competition. In Europe we had a wave of consolidation. Lame companies disappeared, healthier companies merger, alot of money was invested in production-facilities. In US that has not happened. You have old and inefficient steel-mills, companies that are stuggling under debt. That is why they can't compete and that is why they went whining to Washington.
That situation would be fixed if you had a direct vote on the president. The current scheme where the winner in a state gets all the electorals of that state is the reason why supporters of the minority party will see their votes wasted. With direct popular vote, that would not happen.