Episodes I through III were dealing in the too recent past directly dealing with known characters who many older fans have had 20 years to come up with their own theories about.
No.
I just saw Episode III last night and it was just as I thought: plain, without any originality or feelings. Bad.
The reason why Episodes I-III are so bad has nothing to do with the fans. Nothing to do with them growing up, their imagination, or whatever. It has to do with George Lucas' (in)ability to screenplay and direct a movie. The dialogues are pathetic from beginning to end (not to mention the love scenes), the actors (though all capable of excellent performances) look bored as hell as they walk through the ridiculous evolution of their character. The complexity of the storyline is as astounding as you would expect from a 13 year-old boy, without any surprise or depth. Most of it is an excuse to visit dozens of various environments, rendered by gorgeous yet overused FX.
There is not a single tiny bit of emotion in these three movies, although that 3rd movie was supposed to be the emotional apotheosis of the saga, with the beloved Anakin turning to the Dark Side, Padme dying, etc. But instead, the spectator is too busy bitching at how Lucas screw up those parts by putting them together in the most primitive, easy way one could think of.
There is no talent in here. George Lucas was simply not good enough a director to make these prequels worth watching, let alone enjoyable. The same thing happened with the Matrix Trilogy, brilliant at first but then spoiled by the greed of the Wachowsky Brothers who couldn't handle the breadth of what they had started. Many praise to Peter Jackson built his trilogy with true genius.
Maybe a Star Wars pre-prequel could be interesting as long as Lucas stays away from it.
Gates says "We need to keep IE the best." Has he ever tried other browsers? IE is not the best (anymore, and probably never was in the first place). Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Opera, the more you look at it and the more it looks like IE is actually the worse browser around.
Did he? I didn't know, I must admit. However, even David Lynch himself had lost the control of the movie in the end, and it was the producer Dino de Laurentiis who put pressure on the director to finish the movie, change the storyline and make a lot of things the way they appeared on the screen. Lynch only really realized and acknowledged that a few years later, but this remained the only movie he is openly "ashamed" of.
I am still hoping for a new adaptation that would be as rewarding as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Time will tell...
Dune: A rewatchable sci-fi classic, by all accounts.
Have you read the book? I doubt it, because it is so much inferior to the original material in every possible way that it has become the top example for horrible adaptations. The book is as rich and deep as the movie is badly paced, acted and has bad SFX (compare to Blade Runner for instance, released two years earlier).
An utterly forgettable movie; ABC; average banal crap. Unlike the 'suck'y Dune, in 20 years I don't expect anyone to remember this film as anything except "the third Harry Potter movie".
It did adapt the original material rather faithfully to the big screen, though, keeping the atmosphere and ideas and cleverly translating them into an enjoyable movie. In other words, if you liked the book, it is a good visual adaptation.
As for people remembering Dune, it is only because it was such a miserable and failed attempt.
Now if you have nothing better to do on Christmas Day than nitpicking on a comment on nitpicking, I suggest that you take as a New Year resolution to learn how to discuss politely on slashdot. Disagreeing does not have to result in lack of respect.
Agreed. Whereas some movie adaptations of great novels do suck (Lynch's Dune), some are good enough to make us forgive the changes required by the new medium (Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). Jackson's Lord of the Rings is simply a perfect interpretation of the books, keeping all the mood, atmosphere and imagination from the original material. Having watched ROTK:EE yesterday, and as a big cinema addict, I can say that few movies have moved me as this trilogy. It transpires the passion of its makers and the soul of Tolkien is omnipresent, in the images, the elvish language, the characters, the epic atmosphere of the whole story.
Nitpicking about adaptation changes is pointless (though the author does somehow acknowledge it is). I cannot imagine anyone making (a) better "Lord of the Rings movie(s)".
Peter Jackson did it, along with an extraordinary film crew, so let's all praise them for it and enjoy these fantastic movies.
I download the software again (this time coming from -- I kid you not! -- a numeric IP address [...]
As opposed to what? A graphical IP address? A string IP address? A musical IP address?
I hope this kind of remark does not reflect the technical skills (or lack thereof) of the author, although the content of the lame flamish post seems to lead us to the same conclusion.
I must admit interest in MS's claim that they're going to create a true database filesystem
I read this occasionally on/., but it is wrong. WinFS is not a (database) filesystem, and this is why the FS in WinFS does not stand for FileSystem but FutureStorage (there must have been a contest to find such a stupid name). WinFS is a database over NTFS that remains the filesystem. It just adds meta-data to files, but in a separate database.
I went to a mini-conference by a ms evangelist, and he repeated it many times.
I'd be more interested in what Reiser4 does with metadata, it seems much more interesting than a mere additionnal layer.
Because your neighbour won't hire someone to do the job (repairing his car, fixing his computer, mowing the grass). I don't think we should conclude that people should stop helping each other.
This is just Yet Another Stupid Argument against Free Software, which should disappear as quickly as the others.
If you liked Pizza, maybe you'll like Scala, a functional, multiparadigm language developped by the same author, Martin Odersky. I have him as a programming teacher, and we learnt functional programming with Scala. It was a great course, and the language is really elegant and powerful.
It has bindings with Java and.Net, but remains functional-oriented.
So why don't they release them (Open Source, or preferably Free Software) ? If they're just crap, Nvidia won't copy them, and it will still allow us to port the drivers to GNU/Linux on a PPC running a radeon 9600...
Graphic drivers are a really tough area because of this closed-source, proprietary habit of the card vendors. I really hope this will improve with time...
I use mlterm because of its great support of UTF-8 rendering. It seems to feature all the cool features from Eterm as well, but I noticed that sometimes, when a lot of text is scrolling fast, the terminal seems to lag a bit.
Does anyone know of another *term with good UTF-8 support (which is not the case of Eterm, alas) ?
Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs
on
A New Look For Firefox
·
· Score: 1
I don't find Qute exceptional. It's good, but it could be better. I don't know if the new theme they're developping will be better, but I don't want to speculate before they've finalized it. We'll see.
Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs
on
A New Look For Firefox
·
· Score: 1
In this case, I guess the best choice is to release Firefox with an IE theme and let power-users change themes if they feel like it ?
IE is just so horrible that both Qute and the new firefox theme are way ahead esthetically. However, if people don't want a new interface at all, would you push an IE looking default theme ?
Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs
on
A New Look For Firefox
·
· Score: 1
This new theme just doesnt fit in Windows or Linux... it looks good for OSX, but just not in other OSes.
I disagree. I have been using the windows version of the theme for weeks, and it's really fine. Check this screenshot for an example.
If you really want it to look windowsish, you'd have to use those big, kitch, flashy buttons that are used in IE. No thanks, the general window interface (flashy window frames) is already ugly enough !
As far as I can see by browsing a few recipes from your repository, you have not developped a special scripting language for it. It's simply bash scripts, with facilities through the usage of common variable and functions that trigger different behaviors.
If I take Armagetron recipe, for instance, it's not really that user-friendly in my opinion. Or, at least, not really more user-friendly than a Gentoo ebuild. Okay, the armagetron ebuild is longer, but it also contains more meta-data (dependences, license, architecture, etc) and it obviously has to install the program in the standard Unix file tree.
So basically, Compile looks like a lighter version of ebuild, but it is certainly not a revolution in the way you have to write the recipe/ebuild. I think GoboLinux looks different enough to make me try it one day, but in my opinion, the recipes do not improve much (assuming they do at all) from the Gentoo ebuilds to be as user-friendly as the inial poster said.
Disclaimer: yes I'm a Gentoo user, but still, kudos to the GoboLinux devs for making it happen anyway !
Slashdot Mirror
No.
I just saw Episode III last night and it was just as I thought: plain, without any originality or feelings. Bad.
The reason why Episodes I-III are so bad has nothing to do with the fans. Nothing to do with them growing up, their imagination, or whatever. It has to do with George Lucas' (in)ability to screenplay and direct a movie. The dialogues are pathetic from beginning to end (not to mention the love scenes), the actors (though all capable of excellent performances) look bored as hell as they walk through the ridiculous evolution of their character. The complexity of the storyline is as astounding as you would expect from a 13 year-old boy, without any surprise or depth. Most of it is an excuse to visit dozens of various environments, rendered by gorgeous yet overused FX.
There is not a single tiny bit of emotion in these three movies, although that 3rd movie was supposed to be the emotional apotheosis of the saga, with the beloved Anakin turning to the Dark Side, Padme dying, etc. But instead, the spectator is too busy bitching at how Lucas screw up those parts by putting them together in the most primitive, easy way one could think of.
There is no talent in here. George Lucas was simply not good enough a director to make these prequels worth watching, let alone enjoyable. The same thing happened with the Matrix Trilogy, brilliant at first but then spoiled by the greed of the Wachowsky Brothers who couldn't handle the breadth of what they had started. Many praise to Peter Jackson built his trilogy with true genius.
Maybe a Star Wars pre-prequel could be interesting as long as Lucas stays away from it.
Maybe you should have a look at your HTML reference book again.
Gates says "We need to keep IE the best." Has he ever tried other browsers? IE is not the best (anymore, and probably never was in the first place). Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Opera, the more you look at it and the more it looks like IE is actually the worse browser around.
snes9x has a GNU/Linux port indeed. Not Free Software though, but (beer-)free and works fine.
Haven't managed to get the previous version of zsnes to work on my PPC GNU/Linux box, I should try this one when the ebuild is available.
Did he? I didn't know, I must admit. However, even David Lynch himself had lost the control of the movie in the end, and it was the producer Dino de Laurentiis who put pressure on the director to finish the movie, change the storyline and make a lot of things the way they appeared on the screen. Lynch only really realized and acknowledged that a few years later, but this remained the only movie he is openly "ashamed" of.
I am still hoping for a new adaptation that would be as rewarding as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Time will tell...
Dune: A rewatchable sci-fi classic, by all accounts.
Have you read the book? I doubt it, because it is so much inferior to the original material in every possible way that it has become the top example for horrible adaptations. The book is as rich and deep as the movie is badly paced, acted and has bad SFX (compare to Blade Runner for instance, released two years earlier).
An utterly forgettable movie; ABC; average banal crap. Unlike the 'suck'y Dune, in 20 years I don't expect anyone to remember this film as anything except "the third Harry Potter movie".
It did adapt the original material rather faithfully to the big screen, though, keeping the atmosphere and ideas and cleverly translating them into an enjoyable movie. In other words, if you liked the book, it is a good visual adaptation.
As for people remembering Dune, it is only because it was such a miserable and failed attempt.
Now if you have nothing better to do on Christmas Day than nitpicking on a comment on nitpicking, I suggest that you take as a New Year resolution to learn how to discuss politely on slashdot. Disagreeing does not have to result in lack of respect.
Agreed. Whereas some movie adaptations of great novels do suck (Lynch's Dune), some are good enough to make us forgive the changes required by the new medium (Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). Jackson's Lord of the Rings is simply a perfect interpretation of the books, keeping all the mood, atmosphere and imagination from the original material. Having watched ROTK:EE yesterday, and as a big cinema addict, I can say that few movies have moved me as this trilogy. It transpires the passion of its makers and the soul of Tolkien is omnipresent, in the images, the elvish language, the characters, the epic atmosphere of the whole story.
Nitpicking about adaptation changes is pointless (though the author does somehow acknowledge it is). I cannot imagine anyone making (a) better "Lord of the Rings movie(s)".
Peter Jackson did it, along with an extraordinary film crew, so let's all praise them for it and enjoy these fantastic movies.
And no real mail by anyone either, right?
I download the software again (this time coming from -- I kid you not! -- a numeric IP address [...]
As opposed to what? A graphical IP address? A string IP address? A musical IP address?
I hope this kind of remark does not reflect the technical skills (or lack thereof) of the author, although the content of the lame flamish post seems to lead us to the same conclusion.
Direct link to the high-res version
I must admit interest in MS's claim that they're going to create a true database filesystem
/., but it is wrong. WinFS is not a (database) filesystem, and this is why the FS in WinFS does not stand for FileSystem but FutureStorage (there must have been a contest to find such a stupid name). WinFS is a database over NTFS that remains the filesystem. It just adds meta-data to files, but in a separate database.
I read this occasionally on
I went to a mini-conference by a ms evangelist, and he repeated it many times.
I'd be more interested in what Reiser4 does with metadata, it seems much more interesting than a mere additionnal layer.
You misread the site indeed. It works everywhere, just grab the source and compile it. Or wait for someone to provide RPMs/DEBs/ebuilds.
PhoneGaim is Free Software (GPL).
Because your neighbour won't hire someone to do the job (repairing his car, fixing his computer, mowing the grass). I don't think we should conclude that people should stop helping each other.
This is just Yet Another Stupid Argument against Free Software, which should disappear as quickly as the others.
This explains why the MSN search engine sucks so much and is so slow. Proofs are really too obvious this time, sorry.
If you liked Pizza, maybe you'll like Scala, a functional, multiparadigm language developped by the same author, Martin Odersky. I have him as a programming teacher, and we learnt functional programming with Scala. It was a great course, and the language is really elegant and powerful.
.Net, but remains functional-oriented.
It has bindings with Java and
but then one would be left with a lot of neutrinos, besides the photons.
Yeah, that was my point.
I'd be interested in the process you suggest that transforms matter into photons...
Then try SWT (Standard Widget Toolkit), notably used for the Eclipse IDE.
ATI has always been plauged by crap drivers.
So why don't they release them (Open Source, or preferably Free Software) ? If they're just crap, Nvidia won't copy them, and it will still allow us to port the drivers to GNU/Linux on a PPC running a radeon 9600...
Graphic drivers are a really tough area because of this closed-source, proprietary habit of the card vendors. I really hope this will improve with time...
In my opinion, the greatest, cutest Firefox/Thunderbird theme is Charamel. It'd be great if they would make a Sunbird theme as well.
I use mlterm because of its great support of UTF-8 rendering. It seems to feature all the cool features from Eterm as well, but I noticed that sometimes, when a lot of text is scrolling fast, the terminal seems to lag a bit.
Does anyone know of another *term with good UTF-8 support (which is not the case of Eterm, alas) ?
I don't find Qute exceptional. It's good, but it could be better. I don't know if the new theme they're developping will be better, but I don't want to speculate before they've finalized it. We'll see.
In this case, I guess the best choice is to release Firefox with an IE theme and let power-users change themes if they feel like it ?
IE is just so horrible that both Qute and the new firefox theme are way ahead esthetically. However, if people don't want a new interface at all, would you push an IE looking default theme ?
This new theme just doesnt fit in Windows or Linux... it looks good for OSX, but just not in other OSes.
I disagree. I have been using the windows version of the theme for weeks, and it's really fine. Check this screenshot for an example.
If you really want it to look windowsish, you'd have to use those big, kitch, flashy buttons that are used in IE. No thanks, the general window interface (flashy window frames) is already ugly enough !
As far as I can see by browsing a few recipes from your repository, you have not developped a special scripting language for it. It's simply bash scripts, with facilities through the usage of common variable and functions that trigger different behaviors.
If I take Armagetron recipe, for instance, it's not really that user-friendly in my opinion. Or, at least, not really more user-friendly than a Gentoo ebuild. Okay, the armagetron ebuild is longer, but it also contains more meta-data (dependences, license, architecture, etc) and it obviously has to install the program in the standard Unix file tree.
So basically, Compile looks like a lighter version of ebuild, but it is certainly not a revolution in the way you have to write the recipe/ebuild. I think GoboLinux looks different enough to make me try it one day, but in my opinion, the recipes do not improve much (assuming they do at all) from the Gentoo ebuilds to be as user-friendly as the inial poster said.
Disclaimer: yes I'm a Gentoo user, but still, kudos to the GoboLinux devs for making it happen anyway !