But they must have had some sort of "inertial dampener", the other physics-defying SF staple.
They have artificial gravity/anti-gravity. I guess you could set it to accelerate the inside of the ship in the direction opposite to the inertia to compensate...
The only (other) real science gaffe I can think of was from an apparent attempt to be realistic -- in "Our Mrs. Reynolds", which I just watched yesterday, they need to fire a rifle (apparently one using more or less 20th century tech) in vacuum. Jayne claims it needs oxygen to fire, but it probably wouldn't. Gunpowder and basically all explosives contain their own oxidizer & don't rely on atmospheric O2.
I've posted about that before, but in short: That is debatable, its not been tested (they researched it and found arguments both ways with no conclusive evidence). Maybe his gun is a special kind that does need O2. And mostly: Does Jayne know that? Jayne isn't booksmart...his logic would be "its a firearm, and fire needs air", its not a scientists that says that the gun needs air, its a mercenary.
You are an informed consumer, taking in their messages from a distanced, reflected point of view. You - and, for what it matters, me too, can separate creative content from the BUY-BUY-BUY message. But advertisment will adapt to that. This is the content of my paranoid rant in the grand-parent. How can we be sure that they haven't already adapted?
Everytime I (a guy) see an ad for "feminine hygiene products", I know they haven't.
I've noticed adaptations. Like having logos bigger and longer on screen so that people fast-forwarding still see an ad. You're fast-forwarding, looking attentively for signs that the show has started, and this big logo stays long enough for you to get a really good look at it. That's subtle.
But they aren't looking to adapt to the few rare people who use their noggins, they still have plenty of low-brow people that are all too happy to suck up their advertisement and go spend spend spend.
That's why TV land is turning into such a crap-fest. The shows are only there to get you to sit down and watch ads, so the shows that are shown are the ones for wich the public is susceptible to the ads. The reality-tv bunch are gullible (if they believe that that's real, they'll swallow anything), and so their shows are what advertisers like and finance.
Lowest common denominators, the plague of all democracies.
Err.. ok... switching to tinfoil-hat-mode... Are you sure this isn't the way they intented their ads to work?
Yes I am. The ad hooks you, and when they have your attention they blast the message (buy Soylent Green!).
There's this ad for some credit card company, or bank, I'm not sure;-) It plays like an animal documentary about the stork ("its role in nature: The bringer...of babies"). I love that ad, its hilarious. No clue what they want me to buy, but I enjoyed it.
creating those needs, desires, and then... you start shelling out money?
I have fallen for some ads, I'm only human. There's a kind of chocolate bar I buy about once a year, when I see an ad for it. I sorta like it, but its not my favourite, so the ads push me over when its been long enough that I sorta remember enjoy it but I don't really remember what it tastes like...
Maybe part of the problem for me is that I grew up without TV. I never learned how to ignore the damned things, so I find that if there is one on when I'm around, it sucks me in. And yes, I fully realize that that's MY problem.;-)
See, I have devellopped great ad-ignoring skills. I can watch ads and enjoy their creative content without ever knowing what product they advertise. I either mute it or change the channel right before they start naming the product/company/promotion. Or right-away if its stupid.
Like ads that start with something like "do you have a mortgage?" I say "no" and mute/change it.
Fox made damn sure it couldn't have the chance to become popular. They aired it at a random timeslot, not everyweek, and not at the time they said the night before that it would air. Some episodes played on fridays at 8, one played at 12:05 AM, another around 12:20 AM, they played out of order...
I think Fox wanted Joss to make another teen-hit, but in space. And when he showed up with the best sci-fi show ever shown on TV, the execs freaked because that was not what they wanted. They didn't want innovative, or smart, they wanted bland and dumb, like them.
The show wasn't watched, but not because it wasn't good, only because it was sabotaged by its cruel Fox masters.
TV is vapid crap used to brainwash people into mindless consumerism and follow-the-herd politics.
By your logic you should also not have internet access, because its full of the same mindless crap.
TV is also a source of humour, educational documentaries, and the occasionnal morcel of wonder such as Firefly. Just because it has a high crap content doesn't mean its ALL crap.
The "Loading" message could be manipulated with the controller, making it wave and distort. I was actually disapointed a couple of times that the level had loaded too fast and interrupted my fun : )
Apart from being famous for abusing the patent system what has Edison got to do with early movies?!
According to a Disney World exhibit and a Simpsons episode, he invented it. Probably due to abusing the patent system to get the patent for movies while others actually did the inventing.
You know, if they lowered the number of prompts and just assumed safe defaults
You have inactive icons on your desktop Take a guided tour of windows XP Stay current with automatic updates
If they have a lot of warning boxes, people bitch about having to *actually read* the boxes, and intelligently choose an option. Don't blame Microsoft because the users are too lazy to make decisions.
Windows spams its users.
Its not warning messages, its the fucking clippy horror without the picture.
Anybody who just clicks "OK" to anything because they don't feel like reading a 5 line message box deserves what they get.
5 lines? EULAs are more like 20 pages. If you had read them, you would know that.
most people don't read anything they are asked on a computer
Well, after the gazzilionth time WinXP annoys them with shit they either don't care or is outright fals (there are x inactive icons on your desktop), its normal that they stop reading it.
Clariagator abuses that and installs itself using the "yeah yeah, whatver" reflex with their prompt window. Or its bundled and its one of the hundred "click ok to continue" window you get when you install a program.
Its not the user's fault, they are victims. Its Microsoft's fault for desensitising them to messages in the first place, to lazy devs who make installers that give you the "ok, ok, ok, ok allready! ok, ok ok, y-e-s, ok, ok" ritual, and of sleaze balls like glatoraria for actually making and pushing this crap.
Don't blame the victim (hey, she was asking for it!).
With their beedy lil' eyes and flapping heads so full of lies!
Xenophobic, yes.
"In the initial stages, nobody really knew what the root cause was," But you know, there are freedom canadians! And they put gravy and cheese on their freedom fries, those foreign weirdos...
I find it funny that he decries Censorship on all levels, while insisting that the parent is moded down, removing it from immediate view for./s with default settings. What is he doing that is different from what the player does?
I'm decrying misinformation (claiming falsely that censorship can only be done by governments). The player hides content that is subjectively considered bad for moral reasons.
I find it sad that you can't tell the difference.
P.S. I do not object to the player, technology that lets you not see/hear things that would upset you is not objectionable. I object to the company that provides the censorship decisions, its monopoly and its motivations.
Okay, again, since you don't seem to be hearing my point: These DVD players are being sold to people who want the stuff removes which is being removed.
I knew that already. But one of my points (I do not know if I expressed that one in the post(s) you read) is that as interresting and usefull as that technology is (I do not deny that), it is too restrictive. Its not the DVD player I object to, its clearplay's monopoly over the decision-making that I object to. If you had a choice of different filters for each movie, I would be super happy about it. But its being locked-down so that you get either the unedited version of the clearplay version. That is wrong. If you could customize to have either the lowest-common-denomiator version, or the "just take out the gore" version, or the "just take out the boobies" version, etc, that would be awsome. You don't, so I complain.
the people using the service are not being "manipulated," because they are the ones asking for this.
That are asking for one thing, but I do not believe that they are necesserilly getting what they think they are getting (buyer beware, as always).
It's one of the nice things about being an American. You get to make your own judgements about who to trust.
From the aproved selection of candidates. You get to feel as though you make your own judgements, that's for sure...
It's not different because you can turn this feature on or off depending on whether or not you want to watch those scenes. Personally, I think it's a good alternative and having a choice is good.
Its too binary for my tastes. What if I don't want the gore and the cursing, but I don't mind the lovemaking and the discussion of the origins of species?
Its the fact that some private group of "thinkers of the children" are making arbitrary choices about what others should or should not see that bothers me.
Aside from that I think the technology itself is a good idea, but you should have a choice of flavours.
The Matrix Reloaded is a good example of a movie where the gratuitous sex scene completely detracted from the flow and purpose of the movie.
Its not gratuitous, it had a purpose, but it was soooooooo looooooong that by the time its over you've forgotten the point and are only left looking at bad softcore porn and wondering when it'll end allready. (The point was to show the animality and warm sensuality of the "free born" people of zion in contrast to the cold and sterile lovemaking of Neo and Trinity...and then it wouldn't end...gah)
P.S. "L'essential est invisible pour les yeux." That should be "essentiel", with an "e", no "a"...
As long as there's free market (i.e., the goverment is not the one doing this) we are free to choose which algorithm for automatic editing we want.
This strikes me as unnecessarily paranoid.
Are you not in a democracy? Do you not choose your government? Can you not write to your representative to ask him to change the algorithms? To offer choice? To mandate full disclosure upon request of what is being censored and why?
When "censorship" is being discussed as a Problem Needing Attention it only makes sense when you are referring to Government action, because Government is the only entity able to enforce censorship beyond the will of adult individuals.
The MPAA censors its member's content. The MPAA is not a government entity.
I am an adult individual, the MPAA enforces censorship against my will.
Read the other replies (yes, I'm in there too), plenty of people have corrected that ignoramus (that's not a swear word, btw), and the AC still got modded up afterwards.
Censorship is not limited to governments. Private censorship is not only possible but a reality. Censorship happens to all layers of society. Individuals censor themselves, parent censor ther kids (don't say that Timmy!), schools (private and public) censor students and teachers, corporations censor themselves and their employees, governments censort heir citizens, but are not the only ones to do so!
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me again how the trilogy that dominates the top-10 all-time worldwide box office rankings isn't "mainstream?"
What does reading and box-office rankings have to do with each other, exactly?
Are you sure there was FTL travel?
Yes, they go from system to system.
But they must have had some sort of "inertial dampener", the other physics-defying SF staple.
They have artificial gravity/anti-gravity. I guess you could set it to accelerate the inside of the ship in the direction opposite to the inertia to compensate...
The only (other) real science gaffe I can think of was from an apparent attempt to be realistic -- in "Our Mrs. Reynolds", which I just watched yesterday, they need to fire a rifle (apparently one using more or less 20th century tech) in vacuum. Jayne claims it needs oxygen to fire, but it probably wouldn't. Gunpowder and basically all explosives contain their own oxidizer & don't rely on atmospheric O2.
I've posted about that before, but in short:
That is debatable, its not been tested (they researched it and found arguments both ways with no conclusive evidence).
Maybe his gun is a special kind that does need O2.
And mostly: Does Jayne know that? Jayne isn't booksmart...his logic would be "its a firearm, and fire needs air", its not a scientists that says that the gun needs air, its a mercenary.
Best sci-fi show ever? That's pretty much contestable on many fronts.
Well, I'd like to see your list of better shows. Better effects, better science, better costumes, writing, etc.
It has a passing grasp of real science
Well, there's FTL travel, but that's a sci-fi standard.
Aside from that, no sound in space, and I can't remember one thing that was obviously wrong.
One could easily trot out a number of other competitors, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Let's not get carried away.
Its a matter of taste. Of all the sci-fi I've watched, which is a lot, its IMO the best.
I mean, remember SeaCrap DSV? Earth2? *groan*
You are an informed consumer, taking in their messages from a distanced, reflected point of view. You - and, for what it matters, me too, can separate creative content from the BUY-BUY-BUY message. But advertisment will adapt to that. This is the content of my paranoid rant in the grand-parent. How can we be sure that they haven't already adapted?
Everytime I (a guy) see an ad for "feminine hygiene products", I know they haven't.
I've noticed adaptations. Like having logos bigger and longer on screen so that people fast-forwarding still see an ad. You're fast-forwarding, looking attentively for signs that the show has started, and this big logo stays long enough for you to get a really good look at it. That's subtle.
But they aren't looking to adapt to the few rare people who use their noggins, they still have plenty of low-brow people that are all too happy to suck up their advertisement and go spend spend spend.
That's why TV land is turning into such a crap-fest. The shows are only there to get you to sit down and watch ads, so the shows that are shown are the ones for wich the public is susceptible to the ads. The reality-tv bunch are gullible (if they believe that that's real, they'll swallow anything), and so their shows are what advertisers like and finance.
Lowest common denominators, the plague of all democracies.
Err.. ok... switching to tinfoil-hat-mode... Are you sure this isn't the way they intented their ads to work?
;-) It plays like an animal documentary about the stork ("its role in nature: The bringer...of babies").
Yes I am. The ad hooks you, and when they have your attention they blast the message (buy Soylent Green!).
There's this ad for some credit card company, or bank, I'm not sure
I love that ad, its hilarious. No clue what they want me to buy, but I enjoyed it.
creating those needs, desires, and then... you start shelling out money?
I have fallen for some ads, I'm only human. There's a kind of chocolate bar I buy about once a year, when I see an ad for it. I sorta like it, but its not my favourite, so the ads push me over when its been long enough that I sorta remember enjoy it but I don't really remember what it tastes like...
Maybe part of the problem for me is that I grew up without TV. I never learned how to ignore the damned things, so I find that if there is one on when I'm around, it sucks me in. And yes, I fully realize that that's MY problem. ;-)
See, I have devellopped great ad-ignoring skills.
I can watch ads and enjoy their creative content without ever knowing what product they advertise. I either mute it or change the channel right before they start naming the product/company/promotion. Or right-away if its stupid.
Like ads that start with something like "do you have a mortgage?" I say "no" and mute/change it.
if it were popular Fox would have kept it.
Fox made damn sure it couldn't have the chance to become popular.
They aired it at a random timeslot, not everyweek, and not at the time they said the night before that it would air.
Some episodes played on fridays at 8, one played at 12:05 AM, another around 12:20 AM, they played out of order...
I think Fox wanted Joss to make another teen-hit, but in space. And when he showed up with the best sci-fi show ever shown on TV, the execs freaked because that was not what they wanted. They didn't want innovative, or smart, they wanted bland and dumb, like them.
The show wasn't watched, but not because it wasn't good, only because it was sabotaged by its cruel Fox masters.
TV is vapid crap used to brainwash people into mindless consumerism and follow-the-herd politics.
By your logic you should also not have internet access, because its full of the same mindless crap.
TV is also a source of humour, educational documentaries, and the occasionnal morcel of wonder such as Firefly.
Just because it has a high crap content doesn't mean its ALL crap.
Like Castlevania, Symphony of the Night on PS1.
The "Loading" message could be manipulated with the controller, making it wave and distort. I was actually disapointed a couple of times that the level had loaded too fast and interrupted my fun : )
Apart from being famous for abusing the patent system what has Edison got to do with early movies?!
According to a Disney World exhibit and a Simpsons episode, he invented it.
Probably due to abusing the patent system to get the patent for movies while others actually did the inventing.
George Eastman invented flexible photographic film around 1884, and patented a film camera in 1888.
Fascinating.
That has nothing to do with the subject at hand (moving pictures), but you get a C for effort. Now run along...
You know, if they lowered the number of prompts and just assumed safe defaults
You have inactive icons on your desktop
Take a guided tour of windows XP
Stay current with automatic updates
If they have a lot of warning boxes, people bitch about having to *actually read* the boxes, and intelligently choose an option. Don't blame Microsoft because the users are too lazy to make decisions.
Windows spams its users.
Its not warning messages, its the fucking clippy horror without the picture.
Anybody who just clicks "OK" to anything because they don't feel like reading a 5 line message box deserves what they get.
5 lines? EULAs are more like 20 pages. If you had read them, you would know that.
Well, maybe he did (or somebody under his employment did), but he wasn't the first.
Behold the brothers Lumière!
most people don't read anything they are asked on a computer
Well, after the gazzilionth time WinXP annoys them with shit they either don't care or is outright fals (there are x inactive icons on your desktop), its normal that they stop reading it.
Clariagator abuses that and installs itself using the "yeah yeah, whatver" reflex with their prompt window.
Or its bundled and its one of the hundred "click ok to continue" window you get when you install a program.
Its not the user's fault, they are victims. Its Microsoft's fault for desensitising them to messages in the first place, to lazy devs who make installers that give you the "ok, ok, ok, ok allready! ok, ok ok, y-e-s, ok, ok" ritual, and of sleaze balls like glatoraria for actually making and pushing this crap.
Don't blame the victim (hey, she was asking for it!).
Man, someone needs to go Steve Irwin on that gator's ass...
seniors will explode in the next two decades
Well, we'll save up on burial costs, but the clean up will be a bitch...
Blame Canada, Blame Canada!
With their beedy lil' eyes and flapping heads so full of lies!
Xenophobic, yes.
"In the initial stages, nobody really knew what the root cause was,"
But you know, there are freedom canadians! And they put gravy and cheese on their freedom fries, those foreign weirdos...
Buzz: Mission Control, this is Corvair. Launch sequence initiated. All systems go.
Homer: Are we there yet? I'm thirsty.
Race: Mission Control, request permission to sedate cargo ahead of schedule.
Controller: Permission denied.
: )
If speeding tickets aren't the proper deterrent, maybe we should stiffen the penalties if we wish to reduce speeding.
;-)
Ah yes, "if something doesn't work, do it more". You must be in charge of the U.S. drug policy
I find it funny that he decries Censorship on all levels, while insisting that the parent is moded down, removing it from immediate view for ./s with default settings. What is he doing that is different from what the player does?
I'm decrying misinformation (claiming falsely that censorship can only be done by governments).
The player hides content that is subjectively considered bad for moral reasons.
I find it sad that you can't tell the difference.
P.S. I do not object to the player, technology that lets you not see/hear things that would upset you is not objectionable. I object to the company that provides the censorship decisions, its monopoly and its motivations.
Okay, again, since you don't seem to be hearing my point: These DVD players are being sold to people who want the stuff removes which is being removed.
I knew that already. But one of my points (I do not know if I expressed that one in the post(s) you read) is that as interresting and usefull as that technology is (I do not deny that), it is too restrictive.
Its not the DVD player I object to, its clearplay's monopoly over the decision-making that I object to.
If you had a choice of different filters for each movie, I would be super happy about it. But its being locked-down so that you get either the unedited version of the clearplay version. That is wrong.
If you could customize to have either the lowest-common-denomiator version, or the "just take out the gore" version, or the "just take out the boobies" version, etc, that would be awsome.
You don't, so I complain.
the people using the service are not being "manipulated," because they are the ones asking for this.
That are asking for one thing, but I do not believe that they are necesserilly getting what they think they are getting (buyer beware, as always).
It's one of the nice things about being an American. You get to make your own judgements about who to trust.
From the aproved selection of candidates.
You get to feel as though you make your own judgements, that's for sure...
It's not different because you can turn this feature on or off depending on whether or not you want to watch those scenes. Personally, I think it's a good alternative and having a choice is good.
Its too binary for my tastes. What if I don't want the gore and the cursing, but I don't mind the lovemaking and the discussion of the origins of species?
Its the fact that some private group of "thinkers of the children" are making arbitrary choices about what others should or should not see that bothers me.
Aside from that I think the technology itself is a good idea, but you should have a choice of flavours.
The Matrix Reloaded is a good example of a movie where the gratuitous sex scene completely detracted from the flow and purpose of the movie.
Its not gratuitous, it had a purpose, but it was soooooooo looooooong that by the time its over you've forgotten the point and are only left looking at bad softcore porn and wondering when it'll end allready.
(The point was to show the animality and warm sensuality of the "free born" people of zion in contrast to the cold and sterile lovemaking of Neo and Trinity...and then it wouldn't end...gah)
P.S. "L'essential est invisible pour les yeux." That should be "essentiel", with an "e", no "a"...
As long as there's free market (i.e., the goverment is not the one doing this) we are free to choose which algorithm for automatic editing we want.
This strikes me as unnecessarily paranoid.
Are you not in a democracy? Do you not choose your government? Can you not write to your representative to ask him to change the algorithms? To offer choice? To mandate full disclosure upon request of what is being censored and why?
When "censorship" is being discussed as a Problem Needing Attention it only makes sense when you are referring to Government action, because Government is the only entity able to enforce censorship beyond the will of adult individuals.
The MPAA censors its member's content.
The MPAA is not a government entity.
I am an adult individual, the MPAA enforces censorship against my will.
Censorship is not limited to governments.
Geez, for crying out loud, that post was ignorant and off topic, not insightfull. What's wrong with the mods today?
Just because he mentioned Mozilla doesn't make him insightfull, no matter how much Firefox rocks (which is a lot).
Censorship is a word used in reference to a Government office
NO ITS NOT!
(Well, it is, but not exclusively)
Read the other replies (yes, I'm in there too), plenty of people have corrected that ignoramus (that's not a swear word, btw), and the AC still got modded up afterwards.
Censorship is not limited to governments. Private censorship is not only possible but a reality.
Censorship happens to all layers of society. Individuals censor themselves, parent censor ther kids (don't say that Timmy!), schools (private and public) censor students and teachers, corporations censor themselves and their employees, governments censort heir citizens, but are not the only ones to do so!