As a person who has held an annual Disneyland pass since 1999, I take exception to your notion that I prefer anime simply because it's anime. I like Spirited Away, and other anime features, because they are generally better animated pictures than virtually anything Disney has EVER produced. (My favorite animated movie is Beauty and the Beast)
Spirited Away has depth...genuine character development, unusual new characters, an original storyline. So much of what Disney animation features do NOT have. Disney has "light action movies for kids" and nothing more. They're not INTERESTED in producing anything more.
If you had a magic crystal ball that could produce animated features that adults would enjoy with complex characters and stories and gave it to Disney and told them "just press this button" they would hand it back to you and say "nah."
Because their market is kids. Spirited Away, and lots of other anime features, reach higher than the 10-year-old intellect. They deserve recognition for that. The Academy gives awards for films that the members themselves felt were better films, not because their kids loved it, or a gazillion kids in America loved it. Head counts are not what awards are supposed to be about. If that were the case, we could just tally the books before and after the movie and automate the process.
Spirited Away won because it was better. Most anime is better.
Spirited Away didn't fail, it didn't get a fair run. Look at Treasure Planet...how AWFUL that movie was, and it was a media blitz from Disney. At least "Spirited" got a better shake than Princess Mononoke. We live in Los Angeles for crying out loud, and we had to drive an hour into Pasadena to an obscure arthouse theater and watch it sitting in folding chairs on a screen the size of a medium-sized in-home projection T.V. screen. MEDIUM-sized projection T.V. screen!
Disney really doesn't want the U.S. to suddenly get an uncontrollable craving for non-Disney-produced animation features. The only reason Ghibli has any ties to Disney at all is because Disney doesn't want anime to steamroll over them without them at least having a hand on the pressure-release valve.
No matter how good the anime feature is, if Disney releases it in the U.S., it's popularity will be governed and reduced by the hand of Eisner.
Adobe says nowhere in that article that they prefer the PC over Mac. It's simply a page about how the P4's 3x faster processor loads stuff 3x faster than the G4. They say nothing about preferring the PC, or focusing on the PC or any of that crap.
Don't let the topic spin out of control...that was simply a page showing performance comparisons.
I, for one, am extremely pleased that the crap Disney released was swept aside and that the best movie actually won. My faith in the academy is still not above the highly skeptical mark, but this is news VERY well taken in this household.
(moderator: If you like Disney's crap, that's fine, come post about how you disagree with me. Don't, however, mark this post as a troll. A troll is not a post you disagree with.)
"Failing to capitalizing" is also a mistake in my grammar (normally I would re-read before submitting, but I hit Submit too fast). Failing to capitalize sentences is NOT a mistake, it's lazy and/or ignorant.
I'm afraid a creative liberty is quite different from blatant misconstruction. I don't know if you realize this, but writing style is not fixed in stone. While grammar has some rules, and style is something that people try to quantify, you ARE permitted to take liberties once in awhile.
Failing to capitalizing sentences, while perhaps merely a creative liberty in prose, in written communication is simply lazy and/or ignorant.
That clue was free. Run it by your nearest literary professor for validity.
Then give him a framed certificate! "You've been painted over in a major motion picture, an industry first. Congratulations! Here is a coupon for dinner for two at Kenny Rogers Roasters."
As an off-topic aside, there are some really dumbass moderators. Just because you don't agree with someone, that doesn't make it a troll. If you don't agree, don't moderate it at all. You don't mark something you don't agree with as a troll...that's not like a sticker that says "I think this guy is wrong." If you want to make a statement, then participate in the fucking discussion, don't mark it as troll and move on. Asshole.
Techsheep: anyone who bleats excitedly when all the other techsheep bleat with glee. "Andy Serkis deserves an oscar!!! Bleat!!! Bleat!!!" You know...it goes with "Windows has another bug!!! Bleat!!! Bleat!!!" Or "Linux will dominate the world and Microsoft will go bankrupt one day!!! Bleat!!! Bleat!!!" And of course "[Insert Really Bad, Cheesy Sci-Fi Show Here] is being cancelled!!! Everyone write [Insert Producer Here] and tell them you want them to keep the show running!!!" I could go on, but now I'm just throwing back poop at the monkeys.
I'm sorry...it might become an acting achievement one day, but so much animation is rendered over his face, I just don't buy that Serkis had much to do with those expressions except as something to lay under the renderings. Look at Gollum's facial movements...they're utterly, typically gummy like virtually all CG animations are right now. If they were copying Serkis so closely, why are his movements more gummy and phony than the old Disney human renderings?
Perhaps he did a fantastic acting job, but the CG renderings were botched. But you know what? That means that, whatever Serkis' achievements were, while he performed them in front of a camera, those achievements never made it to the big screen.
Sorry guys, I just don't buy the propaganda. A "making of" video just serves as propaganda here. But I do realize how much it means to you techsheep to have Serkis' get recognized by the acting community for his work, and I'm sorry if it irks you that "I don't see it."
...he was a stand-in for the actors to look so they appeared to be looking at gollum when they did the CG. Andy Serkis didn't decide what emotions to show at certain moments, those are scripted. He was just a body. That's like giving David Prowse an oscar for his work as Darth Vader. Regardless of what Prowse was doing in his Vader suit, what we saw could have been done by anyone. A sock puppet could have done what Serkis did. Come on folks, quit being such techsheep.
...when this is news. This isn't news, folks. It's a mistake. Fold your fangs back and find your blood elsewhere. Mistakes happen; quit trying to "stick it to the man" all the goddamn time and talk about something important.
Is it really a free hotspot?
on
Beer and Bluetooth
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It doesn't mention free internet access. I believe it's simply a wireless intranet they use for their own application: putting images up on the ceiling. Cool, of course, but not a free hotspot.
...because XML is clearly the future of many kinds of document formats and it now puts the onus of creating an XML office document format on the shoulders of the open source community, rather than let Microsoft govern that arena. If the new version Office had come with proper XML formatting, it would have made some people's lives easier, but it would have come at the cost of us forever chasing Microsoft's ever-changing standard and they certainly would make sure to never leave it standing still long enough for any competing word processor to properly support its XML structure.
Most novices come right out of the gate thinking OO is supposed to characterize EVERYTHING on a project, and it's not. I think when people are new to OO, the introduction material tends to be of the nature "you must do everything as OO and your entire project must become one giant reusable framework than can adapt to merge automatically with any other system at the flick of your pinky." That's a bit naive. At best, a real OO framework is designed as a library, but any given project is generally not a library, it's a project, so you do much less OO in it. You set up OO frameworks where it makes sense, otherwise you go with whatever works.
Really give OO a try. You have to get past those initial academic/purist notions to find out how it's really useful. Encapsulation can steady a project like magic. The rest of it is useful in certain places for certain reasons, but encapsulation is useful everywhere.
The term is "Object Oriented" not "Object Constrained." You don't use OO to do data modeling or system modeling or even runway modeling. OO is a paradigm for programming. It's a way to connect to whatever your real-world paradigms are, to grab hold of them and make it easier to work with them. Not completely encapsulate and govern them. Oriented. Not leather-straps-and-buckles constrained. Oriented. You make your real-world data structured how you need it to be; whatever is easiest to develop, maintain and extend. If you want to form it into an OO shape because you see it that way, do so. If you can't see the data in an OO way, then just do it how you see it, then use OO where applicable to help you keep your code organized, clean and functioning well.
Also, try getting your head out of that mode. You seem to be arguing against some fixed notion you have about OO. Just go try it for yourself.
Yes, that's my showpiece. No, wait, or was I talking about a simple contest in jest? Yes, that's it. No, wait, you challenged me and called Java my showpiece. I must puff up my chest and let you morph my words and this discussion and argue against you now! No, that would be moronic! But wait, I must argue! I'm so confused! I cannot continue this discussion, you win.
Oh...I must have missed that part. I knew you were seeking/destroying errors, but I thought you meant "in general" you were now handling errors differently. I didn't realize there was a specific error condition you were trying to nail down.
What hype? Don't feel pressured...if you don't need it much, look the other way. If you drive a VW and you are sick of Hummer ads, look away. OO is a paradigm that people are finding extraordinarily useful. If you don't find it so, you don't find it so.
No...I get to bring my libraries. That's sort of one of OOP's most useful aspects, good library mechanisms. Suck it up, proceduralist. You get to bring vi and one compiler/interpreter of your choice. I'm coming with Scite and a Java VM. Let's race to the Google API.
You know what? Then you don't chase them. If you couldn't get any good use out of OOP, then just stay there in your procedural camp. I programmed in LISP before I'd ever even heard of C or C++, much less Java and I've done a lot with all of them, and gotten excellent use out of all of them. I was not mired in a fantasy world of OO theory; I took C++ and Java and put them straight away to good use. You must be "the LISP guy" where you work; I feel sorry for you if your company ever decides to shift into second gear, you're going to end up at the bottom of a very large barrel of otherwise useful programmers clawing at the sky for a job.
Slashdot Mirror
...how much data a beowulf cluster of these could store...
As a person who has held an annual Disneyland pass since 1999, I take exception to your notion that I prefer anime simply because it's anime. I like Spirited Away, and other anime features, because they are generally better animated pictures than virtually anything Disney has EVER produced. (My favorite animated movie is Beauty and the Beast)
Spirited Away has depth...genuine character development, unusual new characters, an original storyline. So much of what Disney animation features do NOT have. Disney has "light action movies for kids" and nothing more. They're not INTERESTED in producing anything more.
If you had a magic crystal ball that could produce animated features that adults would enjoy with complex characters and stories and gave it to Disney and told them "just press this button" they would hand it back to you and say "nah."
Because their market is kids. Spirited Away, and lots of other anime features, reach higher than the 10-year-old intellect. They deserve recognition for that. The Academy gives awards for films that the members themselves felt were better films, not because their kids loved it, or a gazillion kids in America loved it. Head counts are not what awards are supposed to be about. If that were the case, we could just tally the books before and after the movie and automate the process.
Spirited Away won because it was better. Most anime is better.
Spirited Away didn't fail, it didn't get a fair run. Look at Treasure Planet...how AWFUL that movie was, and it was a media blitz from Disney. At least "Spirited" got a better shake than Princess Mononoke. We live in Los Angeles for crying out loud, and we had to drive an hour into Pasadena to an obscure arthouse theater and watch it sitting in folding chairs on a screen the size of a medium-sized in-home projection T.V. screen. MEDIUM-sized projection T.V. screen!
Disney really doesn't want the U.S. to suddenly get an uncontrollable craving for non-Disney-produced animation features. The only reason Ghibli has any ties to Disney at all is because Disney doesn't want anime to steamroll over them without them at least having a hand on the pressure-release valve.
No matter how good the anime feature is, if Disney releases it in the U.S., it's popularity will be governed and reduced by the hand of Eisner.
Adobe says nowhere in that article that they prefer the PC over Mac. It's simply a page about how the P4's 3x faster processor loads stuff 3x faster than the G4. They say nothing about preferring the PC, or focusing on the PC or any of that crap.
Don't let the topic spin out of control...that was simply a page showing performance comparisons.
I, for one, am extremely pleased that the crap Disney released was swept aside and that the best movie actually won. My faith in the academy is still not above the highly skeptical mark, but this is news VERY well taken in this household.
(moderator: If you like Disney's crap, that's fine, come post about how you disagree with me. Don't, however, mark this post as a troll. A troll is not a post you disagree with.)
"Failing to capitalizing" is also a mistake in my grammar (normally I would re-read before submitting, but I hit Submit too fast). Failing to capitalize sentences is NOT a mistake, it's lazy and/or ignorant.
I'm afraid a creative liberty is quite different from blatant misconstruction. I don't know if you realize this, but writing style is not fixed in stone. While grammar has some rules, and style is something that people try to quantify, you ARE permitted to take liberties once in awhile.
Failing to capitalizing sentences, while perhaps merely a creative liberty in prose, in written communication is simply lazy and/or ignorant.
That clue was free. Run it by your nearest literary professor for validity.
Then give him a framed certificate! "You've been painted over in a major motion picture, an industry first. Congratulations! Here is a coupon for dinner for two at Kenny Rogers Roasters."
As an off-topic aside, there are some really dumbass moderators. Just because you don't agree with someone, that doesn't make it a troll. If you don't agree, don't moderate it at all. You don't mark something you don't agree with as a troll...that's not like a sticker that says "I think this guy is wrong." If you want to make a statement, then participate in the fucking discussion, don't mark it as troll and move on. Asshole.
Techsheep: anyone who bleats excitedly when all the other techsheep bleat with glee. "Andy Serkis deserves an oscar!!! Bleat!!! Bleat!!!" You know...it goes with "Windows has another bug!!! Bleat!!! Bleat!!!" Or "Linux will dominate the world and Microsoft will go bankrupt one day!!! Bleat!!! Bleat!!!" And of course "[Insert Really Bad, Cheesy Sci-Fi Show Here] is being cancelled!!! Everyone write [Insert Producer Here] and tell them you want them to keep the show running!!!" I could go on, but now I'm just throwing back poop at the monkeys.
Speaking of; how about capitalizing the beginning of your sentences, Mr. Grammar?
I'm sorry...it might become an acting achievement one day, but so much animation is rendered over his face, I just don't buy that Serkis had much to do with those expressions except as something to lay under the renderings. Look at Gollum's facial movements...they're utterly, typically gummy like virtually all CG animations are right now. If they were copying Serkis so closely, why are his movements more gummy and phony than the old Disney human renderings?
Perhaps he did a fantastic acting job, but the CG renderings were botched. But you know what? That means that, whatever Serkis' achievements were, while he performed them in front of a camera, those achievements never made it to the big screen.
Sorry guys, I just don't buy the propaganda. A "making of" video just serves as propaganda here. But I do realize how much it means to you techsheep to have Serkis' get recognized by the acting community for his work, and I'm sorry if it irks you that "I don't see it."
...he was a stand-in for the actors to look so they appeared to be looking at gollum when they did the CG. Andy Serkis didn't decide what emotions to show at certain moments, those are scripted. He was just a body. That's like giving David Prowse an oscar for his work as Darth Vader. Regardless of what Prowse was doing in his Vader suit, what we saw could have been done by anyone. A sock puppet could have done what Serkis did. Come on folks, quit being such techsheep.
...when this is news. This isn't news, folks. It's a mistake. Fold your fangs back and find your blood elsewhere. Mistakes happen; quit trying to "stick it to the man" all the goddamn time and talk about something important.
It doesn't mention free internet access. I believe it's simply a wireless intranet they use for their own application: putting images up on the ceiling. Cool, of course, but not a free hotspot.
...because XML is clearly the future of many kinds of document formats and it now puts the onus of creating an XML office document format on the shoulders of the open source community, rather than let Microsoft govern that arena. If the new version Office had come with proper XML formatting, it would have made some people's lives easier, but it would have come at the cost of us forever chasing Microsoft's ever-changing standard and they certainly would make sure to never leave it standing still long enough for any competing word processor to properly support its XML structure.
This is a good thing, folks.
Am I the only one who sits here scratching his head wondering why anyone would go to a Perl convention when they could be home coding in Ruby?
No, I have no burden to show you anything. If you don't want to get off your butt and try it for yourself, that's up to you.
You're waiting for a saleperson to come along and pitch one to you? Now that's lazy. No wonder you can't handle OO.
Most novices come right out of the gate thinking OO is supposed to characterize EVERYTHING on a project, and it's not. I think when people are new to OO, the introduction material tends to be of the nature "you must do everything as OO and your entire project must become one giant reusable framework than can adapt to merge automatically with any other system at the flick of your pinky." That's a bit naive. At best, a real OO framework is designed as a library, but any given project is generally not a library, it's a project, so you do much less OO in it. You set up OO frameworks where it makes sense, otherwise you go with whatever works.
Really give OO a try. You have to get past those initial academic/purist notions to find out how it's really useful. Encapsulation can steady a project like magic. The rest of it is useful in certain places for certain reasons, but encapsulation is useful everywhere.
Anyone who is still spelling Clos as CLOS is pretty much certainly lacking dates on the weekend.
The term is "Object Oriented" not "Object Constrained." You don't use OO to do data modeling or system modeling or even runway modeling. OO is a paradigm for programming. It's a way to connect to whatever your real-world paradigms are, to grab hold of them and make it easier to work with them. Not completely encapsulate and govern them. Oriented. Not leather-straps-and-buckles constrained. Oriented. You make your real-world data structured how you need it to be; whatever is easiest to develop, maintain and extend. If you want to form it into an OO shape because you see it that way, do so. If you can't see the data in an OO way, then just do it how you see it, then use OO where applicable to help you keep your code organized, clean and functioning well.
Also, try getting your head out of that mode. You seem to be arguing against some fixed notion you have about OO. Just go try it for yourself.
Yes, that's my showpiece. No, wait, or was I talking about a simple contest in jest? Yes, that's it. No, wait, you challenged me and called Java my showpiece. I must puff up my chest and let you morph my words and this discussion and argue against you now! No, that would be moronic! But wait, I must argue! I'm so confused! I cannot continue this discussion, you win.
Oh...I must have missed that part. I knew you were seeking/destroying errors, but I thought you meant "in general" you were now handling errors differently. I didn't realize there was a specific error condition you were trying to nail down.
What hype? Don't feel pressured...if you don't need it much, look the other way. If you drive a VW and you are sick of Hummer ads, look away. OO is a paradigm that people are finding extraordinarily useful. If you don't find it so, you don't find it so.
No...I get to bring my libraries. That's sort of one of OOP's most useful aspects, good library mechanisms. Suck it up, proceduralist. You get to bring vi and one compiler/interpreter of your choice. I'm coming with Scite and a Java VM. Let's race to the Google API.
You know what? Then you don't chase them. If you couldn't get any good use out of OOP, then just stay there in your procedural camp. I programmed in LISP before I'd ever even heard of C or C++, much less Java and I've done a lot with all of them, and gotten excellent use out of all of them. I was not mired in a fantasy world of OO theory; I took C++ and Java and put them straight away to good use. You must be "the LISP guy" where you work; I feel sorry for you if your company ever decides to shift into second gear, you're going to end up at the bottom of a very large barrel of otherwise useful programmers clawing at the sky for a job.