After trying for a while, I'm using Kino on Linux.
Works great for amateur use, but if you're ever going to do professional editing, you can forget Linux -- at least for a while. Main Actor (for Windows and Linux) is the very bottom end of what I'd even look at for professional video editing (and that includes, from my point of view, doing a wedding for anyone). That doesn't mean I'd use it. Premiere (Windows only, AFAIK) is the low end of what I'd actually use for professional editing.
But I also get the idea you're talking about hobby work, and it isn't clear if the poster is actually talking about pro work.
Maybe the can do the same stuff, but as a video professional, my opinion is that the Mac does it better. It feels more like a video editor and lets you think more about editing than how to edit.
One of the shows that was recognized for outstanding quality, and was one of the first shows to be talked about by almost all of America was "All in the Family." They maintained continuity over a number of years and, while some episodes built on others, they did it without having to create story lines where you had to watch every episode to keep up.
I'm not saying long arcs are a bad idea, but if a show is crashing, and losing viewers, running a long arc (and, to be honest, I felt this arc was so simple it was an insult to the viewer's intelligence) is not the best way to bring in more people. It may keep those you have, but it also has a good chance of discouraging people from getting involved in a story that started a few weeks before they started watching a show.
Oh, and there were MANY other shows, other than All in the Family that maintained quality without story arcs. The original Twilight Zone (and the one in the early 1980's that Straczynski story-editied) didn't even have a continuity of characters from week to week. Same with both incarnations of Outer Limits.
There are some shows I'll watch BECAUSE they have an arc (for example, I was excited to hear Manny Coto was coming to Enterprise, since he did a great job with the arc in Odyssey 5, and I really liked Total Recall 2070 (unfortunately, both shows were cancelled after 1 year -- maybe that's part of my aversion to getting involved in a long arc!) ).
Funny you should mention The Shadow. It's one of my favorite radio shows. At first I thought it was great. While I still like it, after listening to several episodes, I've realized how predictable it is. I can tell early on which character is the good person who was corrupted and must die at the end, who is the informant who will give one piece of critical information and be killed before he can tell Lamont Cranston the rest. And, while I know you're just giving an example, just to set the record straight, The Shadow was not a serial -- each episode was self-contained.
Oh, on the other hand, there's Flash Gordon, where each episode led to the next for an arc that went through the entire serial. That one-year arc didn't make it at all intellectually challenging.
If it's not white, it doesn't have to be black. A show doesn't have to have only self-contained episodes to not have a year long arc. I don't remember the shows, but I've had times where I've turned on the TV and seen an episode of a show, and turned it off after 15 minutes because I had no idea what was going on. It was just to complex.
It's possible to have a show where episodes build on each other, but to still make each episode self-contained and enjoyable in itself. Except for the first few episodes of the 4th season, B5 did a great job at it.
There is a whole lot of area to explore between "series of self contained...episodes" (and does self-contained mean they ahve to be pointless?) and a show built exclusively around a season long arc?
I konw Enteriprise had a lot of eps that stood on their on in the arc, but I know tha I'm reluctant to get involved with a show that has long complex arcs if I haven't seen it from the start. While it's possible I could be the only person in the US or world that feels that way, I doubt I am.
No, he pitched B5 to them, and they turned it down. It was AFTER that DS9 appeared, with many superficial similarities to B5. He's discussed this on the net before (and saying he didn't think Berman et al were deliberatley copying, but might have been guided by the studio).
I stopped watching "Andromeda" when they fired the old writers, killed the story arc (that seemed quite interesting), and (this is what really killed it for me), added the line, "The Universe can be a dangerous place" to the credits.
I figured if they could put a line that bad in the credits, where they're trying to impress everyone, there's no telling how bad the script writing would be.
(Plus, right at the same time, in the last episode I ever saw, they took John DeLancie's character, clearly a bad guy and tried to turn him into "likeable rogue". That's as bad as saying Han Solo didn't shoot first!)
I got spoiled by B5, where we were set up for one thing, and instead of spending the series waiting for it, when it came, it was setting up something else. Once I saw they were doing a 1 year arc, I knew they'd save Earth in the last 15 minutes of the last episode. Even though they had a few stories, and got better toward the end (they actually brought in some interesting characters), it was still a bad idea.
Who didn't expect them to save Earth? (After all, without Earth, where would Kirk, et al be?) And who is going to come into a show they haven't been watching if they know it's about to start a year long story? I know I don't get into shows where I think I'll need to see it every week to keep up with it. (While you didn't need to watch every week for the Xindi arc, how would someone know that without watching?)
The 1 year arc was just a bad idea.
Bringing on Manny Coto was the best thing they did in the entire run of the series (putting Brannon Braga in charge was the worst). I just wish, after finally doing something good, they'd get out of the way and give it a few years.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be ironic if some other network tried to pick it up?
Joe Straczynski (who did Babylon 5) said he pitched an idea for a Trek series to Paramont. Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll let him do something good, since he's a proven talent.
When I was just starting my business, my system was developed on a Linux box and I had to put one in each client's office (until, eventually, I had a Java program that was multi-platform). I hadn't done a lot of programming (almost none in 10 years), but the one smart thing I did was make sure my program logged everything it did, with the time it did it.
I had a system in an office 2 hours away that went down the same night every week. After checking the logs, an idea hit me and I called the client.
ME: Do you ever work late in that office? CLIENT: Sometimes. ME: When does the cleaning staff get there? CLIENT: What's that got to do with it? ME: I'll explain in a minute.
It turns out the cleaning staff, once a week, was coming in and turning off the switch on the powerstrip that fed my system. I had them put tape over the switch and add a warning note to it. It never happened again.
Part of the point of my sarcasm is that it'd be easier to just look and see. I don't know about you, or anyone else, but I find I tend to remember pretty easily what's in the kitchen, almost without any effort.
It just seems to me you're spending weeks putting together a system that will save you a few minutes at a time. In ten or fifteen years, assuming you don't have to maintain the system, the time may even out.
It reminds me of the time I typed in the titles, authors, and other info into a database for all of my (then) over 1,000 books in my library. I said I could use this system to keep up with what I had, where it was, and if a book was checked out. I found out, in the long run, that somehow I always remembered where the books were on the shelf anyway and a simple sheet of paper made a good "sign out" system.
Doing things the geek way can be useful, but there comes a time, with any system, when it's much easier, in the long run, to just simplify it and get a life (not intended as an insult).
It occurs to me that it takes just as long to check the fridge and cabnet as it does to look through a database, even if the database has a way of tracking items using RFID tags.
Honestly, there is already an easy way to see what one can have for dinner. I use it every day. It's called my eyes. It takes me less than a minute to check the fridge, freezer, and cabinets to see what I have. If I tried to track everything, putting away groceries would take much longer, and cooking (or just grabbing that midnight snack when I'm drowsy and hungry and unlikely to remember to scan anything) will take longer. In the long run, it'd take more time to scan and track than to just get off my butt and take a quick look.
Yeah, I forgot the open format thing. That's a HUGE reason I used OOo. I was able to get into the files and edit them MY way, not by having to use the interface. It sped my program up (I forgot the exact numbers, but it was at least 1/3 faster, in part for not having to load a program like OOo or Word).
I've never used Office, at least seriously. I've never needed publisher and, when I used Word Perfect, found it could handle all my desktop publishing needs (I used to edit a newsletter and ran my own magazine for a short while). I am looking forward to having time to check out Scribus for dtp work in Linux.
As for Access, there are MANY choices for databases in FOSS. I prefer MySQl.
As for wysiwyg HTML editing, I would NEVER touch Frontpage. One of my earliest experiences with HTML was cleaning up a site done in Frontpage that had all sorts of extra extensions for IE only (before IE took over). It's not a MS thing, but I WON'T use any program that forces others to use only one program to read/view docs or files done in that program. While NVu is buggy, it is getting MUCH better. OOo also does HTML, although there are a few features it still lacks (like tables within tables, although that is in either 1.1.3 or 1.1.4 or 2.0 -- forgot where it was added).
I also won't use Office because of compliance issues. I started as a small, one person, company, and built up from there. I want to stay small. Smaller means less overhead, and, to be blunt, we've found good ways to bring in good profit with a smaller staff. Even with a small company, though, there are problems like how many licenses did we get for a program. That's one big reason we use FOSS. Licensing is NO problem at all. We are in 100% compliance on all our software and I can promise you that there are NO illegal copies of ANY software in our offices (or in my home, for that matter -- but I won't speak for employees, since I honestly don't know). We have 1 licensed copy each of Win2k, WinXp, and Win98. We use them ONLY to test the one program we send out to our clients, which means they're used before shipping, and for a few weeks after if there are any bugs (we ship a VERY small program, so it's not too hard to debug). Other than that, Windows is hardly EVER used (if at all). The legit copies are all on a partitioned hard drive that mounts in a drive rack, so it can be moved to different systems. Most of the time the test system is running Linux and used for other uses.
Yep, it's a simple answer. Simple for simpletons, that is.
I know this is a troll, but I'd rather respond as if it were legit, since there are MANY good reasons for NOT using MS products (other than irrational fear of monopolies).
There are a large number of reasons for using OOo. MS Office is WAY overpriced, for one. I started my business by spending less than $100 on software (and later, just before final release of 1.0, a copy of Win2k for testing). If I had used Windows and Office, along with other MS tools, I would have had to spend thousands of dollars when I didn't have it. I found using Linux and OOo saved me a LOT of money when I didn't have any extra.
There's also safety. There are a host of virii for Word, but none for OOo (and OOo will not auto-execute macros, like Word).
And availability and licensing. A lot of my clients are lawyers, and that is one place where Word Perfect is still heavily in use. If I based my software on Office, I'd have to either supply each client with a copy, or force them to buy one. Instead, I based it on OOo, and install OOo on the client's computer with my system. They like getting a free office suite, and it doesn't cost them what they'd have to pay if I based my system on Office. I've even had several lawyers that were using Word tell me they were so impressed with OOo, they're switching. The biggest bankruptcy lawyer in Northern Virginia, for instance, tried OOo when I recommended it, and has decided he'd rather use it for free than pay several hundred for each copy he needs in all of his offices.
And there's the cross platform thing. My system is designed for Linux, Mac, and Windows. (I've had to work with several lawyers who have servers running on Linux, and they like having my system automated on a server as opposed to having to run on an employee's desktop unit.) I wrote it in Java, so it ports easily, with OOo, to all 3 operating systems I mentioned. That's not possible with Office.
So before you go trashing a program and say just do what everyone else does, think. Also think about the old line from your elementary school teacher: "If everyone jumped off the Empire State Building, would you?" Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's right or a good thing. That would mean that since both Clinton and G.W. Bush won elections, that they both must be the best, and I doubt you'll find anyone who things both were/are excellent presidents.
It seems your argument is that reworking of prior art is okay as long as the end result is good.
Not really. I'm just admitting that while I think it's a writer's job to come up with original material (yes, I know there are only a limited number of plots, but there are an unlimited number of character and character interaction possibilities), I still like "Forbidden Planet".
So while Hitchcock did not personally endorse the remake, whomever he decided would take over his estate did (presumably a trusted person).
While Hitchcock was a powerful player in Hollywood by the time "Psycho" was made, I think (I am not sure and haven't checked) the copyright for the film is still held by the studio, or whatever studio bought the original studio. Directors don't (usually) hold a copyright. (Side note: For example, "Rebecca" won Best Picture, but the Oscar went to Selznick, the producer, and the director (Hitch) was ignored, as is often the case.)
You are right that it is subjective. You can't tell a work will suck until it's done. And it might be hated now, but loved later ("Oklahoma" was originally panned by critics). I might love it, others might hate it. (For example, I think "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg", "The Story of Adele H", and "La Strada" are masterpieces of art. I have a number of friends who think they're boring.)
I agree that copyright should end, and a work should enter public domain (except for Peter Pan -- Royalties to to a children's hospital and the copyright was extended forever by a special act of Parliment). It's like a playground. The person who built it should have first rights to it, but after a while, when other writers are let in to play with the same toys, they get different results. On the other hand, I'd rather see writers come up with original ideas instead of re-hashing other peoples' work.
I know I'm being snooty about it, but I think a writer who is full of creativity can easily focus on creating new wonderful works, instead of rehashing someone else's work. It is VERY rare that a rehash ever shows staying quality. The only rehash of "Romeo and Juliet" that I've found worthwhile is "West Side Story".
Stories are rehashed because the original captured peoples' imagination and somehow has a staying power. There was something special about it that made that storie (or work of art) rise above others and be noticed as something special. It seems like a writer somehow expects that special quality to transfer to their new work, but rarely are the derivatives anywhere near as good as the original.
Maybe it is worth all the easily ignored derivative work to see the few that are worthwhile (like "West Side Story" and "Forbidden Planet"), but I still feel a writer's talents are better used creating original work than re-doing someone else's creative ideas.
Try reading the books. I never said anything about the movie (and I'm referring ONLY to the 1939 movie, with Judy Garland, not any of the others).
Oh, and as a small point of trivia, when, in the movie, you see the Witch prepare to order the Flying Monkeys, notice that the monkey with her hands her a strange hat. That's a small reference to an important point in the book (that matters later in the book, but not in the movie). The monkeys were not grotesque and were not evil. Whoever had possession of the magic hat could control the monkeys 3 times. The only reason they followed the witch's orders were because of the hat.
And in the book the witches were not as frightening. Mean, but not nearly the threat they were in the movie. Miss Gulch, who wanted to kill Toto, was NEVER in the book. There was hardly any development of the Kansas characters in the book (including the Professor who, in Oz, was the Wizard and other characters). In the book, it is also NOT a dream.
There are a HUGE number of liberties taken in the movie that have nothing to do with the book. There is also a LOT that was omitted from the movie, like what happened to the other characters at the end. (And one last point of trivia: as I said, in the books, Oz is NOT a dream. It is real and in the 5th book, when Uncle Henry realizes the farm is failing, Dorothy has them all transported to Oz where Uncle Henry and Auntie Em run a farm in Munchkinland from then on.)
I agree with the point about copyright expiration. I like seeing new works that can include old works (for example, "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"), but I think there's a limit. I guess I should point out that I'm a writer (I started my current business to finance a digital film production company so I could shoot my own scripts MY way instead of selling them and seeing them re-written 20 times). Maybe that's why I feel the original creation should be treated with respect. It's also why I don't like remakes. For example, "Casablanca" was a great film, and there's no need to remake it. The remake of "Psycho" a few years ago seemed totally pointless to me -- especially since it was a "shot for shot" remake.
If a writer/artist can't come up with something original, I'd rather not see them do anything with it at all. I don't like ripping off another person's work, signing your name, and passing it off as new (which is one reason I never bothered to see "Treasure Planet" -- the book is great and if it were done RIGHT on film, there's no need to do it with spaceships instead).
I don't like Disney neutering, as you say (good term) work. I think it's wrong, and I think it's just as wrong to take something tame (like Oz) and darken it. I'd rather see the people involved showing enough creativity and imagination to come up with something on their own.
On the other hand, I do have to add that "Forbidden Planet" (a re-write of "The Tempest") is one of my favorite SF films.
I've never heard of American McGee, but I used to read the Oz books to my students when I taught elementary school. After looking over the American McGee site, I can't see that it has any real, significant connection to the originals. For one thing, there's a reference to "the darker side of Oz" and Frank Baum made it clear there was no darker side. His intent was to create a land of wonder and amazement without the creatures that caused kids nightmares.
I've never been able to stand it when movies or updates sanitized stories for mass consumption, and I find I'm feeling the same way about taknig something that was created with specific intent and twisting that intent into something opposite of it.
So, after checking out the site, it looks to me like American McGee took someone else's creation and re-did it without a lot of what made the original special. It'd be kind of like taking the Terminator series and remaking it without evil robots. So am I missing something about American McGee, or is it the same kind of "ignore the original and remake in our way" stuff as what I just described?
While a Q&A session with the President might be nice, very few presidents would agree to it (at least with Congress), merely on the grounds that it clouds the checks and balances between the Legislative and Executive branches.
It might blur the distinction of responsibilities and power, but, in the long run, I think it would increase the C&B. I doubt any Prez would like it, because it would make him responsible to more people. On the other hand, making him responsible, directly, for his policies to our representatives, would increase his answerability to the public. Of course, I'm sure that's why no President would want it. (Maybe we can get it through Congress and have it arrive on a President's desk before he leaves office?)
The president needs to get majority votes in both Senate and House to get bills passed.
That's true, but while the majority party is the same party as the President, the opposition can often be squelched. While filibusters and other tactics are still possible, when the majority party is the same as the President's party, it is VERY rare you'll see them override a veto, much less impeach. (Can you picture either party impeaching a President of their affilation?)
Personally, I've always preferred to see Congress to have a majority that was opposite whatever the President was. While that isn't necessary, as long as the majority party is the same as the President's party, the President does not have to defend his position.
While you reference a vote of no confidence, requiring the President to respond to the opposition would NOT mean a system using a "no confidence" vote that could put the President out of office. Reagan had several cases where he pushed bills through Congress and lost. It didn't take away his power.
In Virginia, the Governer's term is 4 years (I think that's standard for all states), but with the provision that no Governer can serve 2 terms in a row. Right now our Gov. is Mark Warner, which means he can't run for re-election, but he can run for another term 4 years after he gets out of office.
I like that because it also gives us what is usually enough time to find any skeletons that were shoved in the closet during a term.
I think you've hit on a major problem with American politics. Because your lead politician and figurehead is never engaged in discussion, his views are never, ever questioned. I think this may have had a more general effect on the level of debate in the country in general.
Exactly! It's easy for a President to hide behind their office. Nixon did it before he resigned, and Bush has done it all along. At least Clinton, when Monica-gate came up, addressed the country and faced questioning (that wasn't held confidential). He may have lied (or, as he would put it, exaggerated), but he faced others.
So have you seen indications that the "Prime Minister's Question Time" actually helps public debate in GB? I'd think if it were required in the US, with cameras allowed, we'd be hearing about it what happened on the news and the President's answers (as well as the opposition's questions) would be continually before the public.
There's one thing I'd like to see changed in the American governmental structure. It's not the election, but I think it would have an effect. In Great Britain, the Prime Minister has to defend his position to the opposition. (I don't know whether it's in the House of Lords or Commons. Could a British reader elaborate on this?) I've seen this several times on "The News Hour" (and now, once I've mentioned a PBS program, I'm sure I'll be branded a liberal and a lot of people will use that as cause to ignore anything I say), with Tony Blair having to justify and explain his reasoning for his position or actions.
While it isn't actually part of the election, I think if the President had to go before the Senate (or House) and personally and directly (in other words, he can't send a Secretary or spin doctor) respond to the opposition, the public (at least those who watch C-SPAN and those who see the mis-representative sound bytes on the news) would know more about who is in office (and possibly up for re-election). During the past 4 years, the President had very few news conferences. There were frequent reports that when he made public appearances, attendees were vetted to make sure they were supporters. The same was done in campaign stops.
I'm not targeting Bush, it's just he's a good example. I think the President, who is elected by the full country, should be held responsible to tell us why he is making the choices he makes -- and should be held to that by the opposition party so he can either clearly explain what he is doing, or reveal that his reasoning is suspect. While this would not have effected Monica-gate, it would have benefited all of us during Clinton's terms as well, since he would have to answer to Republicans about what he is doing.
While it's not part of the election, once a President gets in office, he's basically campaigning for re-election. This would mean he can't spin everything and would have to continually face challenging questions about what he is doing. I think it'd effect elections in the long run, because we'd be more aware of how a sitting President makes his decisions.
1) Some of us (like film buffs) learned that it was pretty wretched and not nearly finely crafted enough, like, for example, 8 1/2, Rear Window, Fahrenheit 451, or 2001: ASO, to be called a film. It's more in the movie, or even down to the "flick" category.
2) Some movies are better left unseen until they hit the dollar theatre or HBO.
3) Putting a top draw star in a production does not mean it'll be worth watching.
I'd say some of use learned a lot from "Judge Dredd". Oh -- and are you sure you shouldn't mention "Demolition Man", with reference to the seen where the Warden's eye was cut out and used to pass the biometric scan? Or "Red Dwarf" where Lister takes the hand that was blown off a person to use for the scan to open a secured door?
Hey, that's right. If the world is still new, than all those memories most of us/.ers have of NOT having a hot chick with us on the weekend are false -- so that means Geeks can do fun things and can even date!
I guess that means my memories of the "old days" when K-Kool had meaning are false, as well...
I need to include a piece of background to make my point.
All Christian churches use the Bible. When Jesus was alive, the Old Testament was already intact, however the New Testament was put together by what is now the Catholic church. Until Martin Luther, ALL Christian doctrine came ONLY from the Catholic church, and even later, after the Reformation, many Protestant churches still depended on teachings that were derived from teachings from the Catholic church.
What most people don't know is that not only did the Church originally have no problem with things like prostitution, but that a number of other changes were made throughout the years (like banning marriage for priests because they would leave their estates to their kids -- so by banning marriage, they left their estates to the church). One of the was that, for a good while, not only was there no problem, in Christianity with same-sex marriages, but there were actually Christian ceremonies for same-sex marriages.
And, if you go back to Jesus, his point was that our focus was to love God first, and others second -- to treat all with love. With that in mind, it seems pretty narrow minded for Christians to treat homosexuals with the same hatred and ignorance they once reserved (at least in America) for non-whites.
Slashdot Mirror
After trying for a while, I'm using Kino on Linux.
Works great for amateur use, but if you're ever going to do professional editing, you can forget Linux -- at least for a while. Main Actor (for Windows and Linux) is the very bottom end of what I'd even look at for professional video editing (and that includes, from my point of view, doing a wedding for anyone). That doesn't mean I'd use it. Premiere (Windows only, AFAIK) is the low end of what I'd actually use for professional editing.
But I also get the idea you're talking about hobby work, and it isn't clear if the poster is actually talking about pro work.
Maybe the can do the same stuff, but as a video professional, my opinion is that the Mac does it better. It feels more like a video editor and lets you think more about editing than how to edit.
One of the shows that was recognized for outstanding quality, and was one of the first shows to be talked about by almost all of America was "All in the Family." They maintained continuity over a number of years and, while some episodes built on others, they did it without having to create story lines where you had to watch every episode to keep up.
I'm not saying long arcs are a bad idea, but if a show is crashing, and losing viewers, running a long arc (and, to be honest, I felt this arc was so simple it was an insult to the viewer's intelligence) is not the best way to bring in more people. It may keep those you have, but it also has a good chance of discouraging people from getting involved in a story that started a few weeks before they started watching a show.
Oh, and there were MANY other shows, other than All in the Family that maintained quality without story arcs. The original Twilight Zone (and the one in the early 1980's that Straczynski story-editied) didn't even have a continuity of characters from week to week. Same with both incarnations of Outer Limits.
There are some shows I'll watch BECAUSE they have an arc (for example, I was excited to hear Manny Coto was coming to Enterprise, since he did a great job with the arc in Odyssey 5, and I really liked Total Recall 2070 (unfortunately, both shows were cancelled after 1 year -- maybe that's part of my aversion to getting involved in a long arc!) ).
Funny you should mention The Shadow. It's one of my favorite radio shows. At first I thought it was great. While I still like it, after listening to several episodes, I've realized how predictable it is. I can tell early on which character is the good person who was corrupted and must die at the end, who is the informant who will give one piece of critical information and be killed before he can tell Lamont Cranston the rest. And, while I know you're just giving an example, just to set the record straight, The Shadow was not a serial -- each episode was self-contained.
Oh, on the other hand, there's Flash Gordon, where each episode led to the next for an arc that went through the entire serial. That one-year arc didn't make it at all intellectually challenging.
If it's not white, it doesn't have to be black. A show doesn't have to have only self-contained episodes to not have a year long arc. I don't remember the shows, but I've had times where I've turned on the TV and seen an episode of a show, and turned it off after 15 minutes because I had no idea what was going on. It was just to complex.
It's possible to have a show where episodes build on each other, but to still make each episode self-contained and enjoyable in itself. Except for the first few episodes of the 4th season, B5 did a great job at it.
There is a whole lot of area to explore between "series of self contained...episodes" (and does self-contained mean they ahve to be pointless?) and a show built exclusively around a season long arc?
I konw Enteriprise had a lot of eps that stood on their on in the arc, but I know tha I'm reluctant to get involved with a show that has long complex arcs if I haven't seen it from the start. While it's possible I could be the only person in the US or world that feels that way, I doubt I am.
No, he pitched B5 to them, and they turned it down. It was AFTER that DS9 appeared, with many superficial similarities to B5. He's discussed this on the net before (and saying he didn't think Berman et al were deliberatley copying, but might have been guided by the studio).
I stopped watching "Andromeda" when they fired the old writers, killed the story arc (that seemed quite interesting), and (this is what really killed it for me), added the line, "The Universe can be a dangerous place" to the credits.
I figured if they could put a line that bad in the credits, where they're trying to impress everyone, there's no telling how bad the script writing would be.
(Plus, right at the same time, in the last episode I ever saw, they took John DeLancie's character, clearly a bad guy and tried to turn him into "likeable rogue". That's as bad as saying Han Solo didn't shoot first!)
I got spoiled by B5, where we were set up for one thing, and instead of spending the series waiting for it, when it came, it was setting up something else. Once I saw they were doing a 1 year arc, I knew they'd save Earth in the last 15 minutes of the last episode. Even though they had a few stories, and got better toward the end (they actually brought in some interesting characters), it was still a bad idea.
Who didn't expect them to save Earth? (After all, without Earth, where would Kirk, et al be?) And who is going to come into a show they haven't been watching if they know it's about to start a year long story? I know I don't get into shows where I think I'll need to see it every week to keep up with it. (While you didn't need to watch every week for the Xindi arc, how would someone know that without watching?)
The 1 year arc was just a bad idea.
Bringing on Manny Coto was the best thing they did in the entire run of the series (putting Brannon Braga in charge was the worst). I just wish, after finally doing something good, they'd get out of the way and give it a few years.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be ironic if some other network tried to pick it up?
Joe Straczynski (who did Babylon 5) said he pitched an idea for a Trek series to Paramont. Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll let him do something good, since he's a proven talent.
When I was just starting my business, my system was developed on a Linux box and I had to put one in each client's office (until, eventually, I had a Java program that was multi-platform). I hadn't done a lot of programming (almost none in 10 years), but the one smart thing I did was make sure my program logged everything it did, with the time it did it.
I had a system in an office 2 hours away that went down the same night every week. After checking the logs, an idea hit me and I called the client.
ME: Do you ever work late in that office?
CLIENT: Sometimes.
ME: When does the cleaning staff get there?
CLIENT: What's that got to do with it?
ME: I'll explain in a minute.
It turns out the cleaning staff, once a week, was coming in and turning off the switch on the powerstrip that fed my system. I had them put tape over the switch and add a warning note to it. It never happened again.
Part of the point of my sarcasm is that it'd be easier to just look and see. I don't know about you, or anyone else, but I find I tend to remember pretty easily what's in the kitchen, almost without any effort.
It just seems to me you're spending weeks putting together a system that will save you a few minutes at a time. In ten or fifteen years, assuming you don't have to maintain the system, the time may even out.
It reminds me of the time I typed in the titles, authors, and other info into a database for all of my (then) over 1,000 books in my library. I said I could use this system to keep up with what I had, where it was, and if a book was checked out. I found out, in the long run, that somehow I always remembered where the books were on the shelf anyway and a simple sheet of paper made a good "sign out" system.
Doing things the geek way can be useful, but there comes a time, with any system, when it's much easier, in the long run, to just simplify it and get a life (not intended as an insult).
It occurs to me that it takes just as long to check the fridge and cabnet as it does to look through a database, even if the database has a way of tracking items using RFID tags.
Honestly, there is already an easy way to see what one can have for dinner. I use it every day. It's called my eyes. It takes me less than a minute to check the fridge, freezer, and cabinets to see what I have. If I tried to track everything, putting away groceries would take much longer, and cooking (or just grabbing that midnight snack when I'm drowsy and hungry and unlikely to remember to scan anything) will take longer. In the long run, it'd take more time to scan and track than to just get off my butt and take a quick look.
Yeah, I forgot the open format thing. That's a HUGE reason I used OOo. I was able to get into the files and edit them MY way, not by having to use the interface. It sped my program up (I forgot the exact numbers, but it was at least 1/3 faster, in part for not having to load a program like OOo or Word).
I've never used Office, at least seriously. I've never needed publisher and, when I used Word Perfect, found it could handle all my desktop publishing needs (I used to edit a newsletter and ran my own magazine for a short while). I am looking forward to having time to check out Scribus for dtp work in Linux.
As for Access, there are MANY choices for databases in FOSS. I prefer MySQl.
As for wysiwyg HTML editing, I would NEVER touch Frontpage. One of my earliest experiences with HTML was cleaning up a site done in Frontpage that had all sorts of extra extensions for IE only (before IE took over). It's not a MS thing, but I WON'T use any program that forces others to use only one program to read/view docs or files done in that program. While NVu is buggy, it is getting MUCH better. OOo also does HTML, although there are a few features it still lacks (like tables within tables, although that is in either 1.1.3 or 1.1.4 or 2.0 -- forgot where it was added).
I also won't use Office because of compliance issues. I started as a small, one person, company, and built up from there. I want to stay small. Smaller means less overhead, and, to be blunt, we've found good ways to bring in good profit with a smaller staff. Even with a small company, though, there are problems like how many licenses did we get for a program. That's one big reason we use FOSS. Licensing is NO problem at all. We are in 100% compliance on all our software and I can promise you that there are NO illegal copies of ANY software in our offices (or in my home, for that matter -- but I won't speak for employees, since I honestly don't know). We have 1 licensed copy each of Win2k, WinXp, and Win98. We use them ONLY to test the one program we send out to our clients, which means they're used before shipping, and for a few weeks after if there are any bugs (we ship a VERY small program, so it's not too hard to debug). Other than that, Windows is hardly EVER used (if at all). The legit copies are all on a partitioned hard drive that mounts in a drive rack, so it can be moved to different systems. Most of the time the test system is running Linux and used for other uses.
Yep, it's a simple answer. Simple for simpletons, that is.
I know this is a troll, but I'd rather respond as if it were legit, since there are MANY good reasons for NOT using MS products (other than irrational fear of monopolies).
There are a large number of reasons for using OOo. MS Office is WAY overpriced, for one. I started my business by spending less than $100 on software (and later, just before final release of 1.0, a copy of Win2k for testing). If I had used Windows and Office, along with other MS tools, I would have had to spend thousands of dollars when I didn't have it. I found using Linux and OOo saved me a LOT of money when I didn't have any extra.
There's also safety. There are a host of virii for Word, but none for OOo (and OOo will not auto-execute macros, like Word).
And availability and licensing. A lot of my clients are lawyers, and that is one place where Word Perfect is still heavily in use. If I based my software on Office, I'd have to either supply each client with a copy, or force them to buy one. Instead, I based it on OOo, and install OOo on the client's computer with my system. They like getting a free office suite, and it doesn't cost them what they'd have to pay if I based my system on Office. I've even had several lawyers that were using Word tell me they were so impressed with OOo, they're switching. The biggest bankruptcy lawyer in Northern Virginia, for instance, tried OOo when I recommended it, and has decided he'd rather use it for free than pay several hundred for each copy he needs in all of his offices.
And there's the cross platform thing. My system is designed for Linux, Mac, and Windows. (I've had to work with several lawyers who have servers running on Linux, and they like having my system automated on a server as opposed to having to run on an employee's desktop unit.) I wrote it in Java, so it ports easily, with OOo, to all 3 operating systems I mentioned. That's not possible with Office.
So before you go trashing a program and say just do what everyone else does, think. Also think about the old line from your elementary school teacher: "If everyone jumped off the Empire State Building, would you?" Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's right or a good thing. That would mean that since both Clinton and G.W. Bush won elections, that they both must be the best, and I doubt you'll find anyone who things both were/are excellent presidents.
It seems your argument is that reworking of prior art is okay as long as the end result is good.
Not really. I'm just admitting that while I think it's a writer's job to come up with original material (yes, I know there are only a limited number of plots, but there are an unlimited number of character and character interaction possibilities), I still like "Forbidden Planet".
So while Hitchcock did not personally endorse the remake, whomever he decided would take over his estate did (presumably a trusted person).
While Hitchcock was a powerful player in Hollywood by the time "Psycho" was made, I think (I am not sure and haven't checked) the copyright for the film is still held by the studio, or whatever studio bought the original studio. Directors don't (usually) hold a copyright. (Side note: For example, "Rebecca" won Best Picture, but the Oscar went to Selznick, the producer, and the director (Hitch) was ignored, as is often the case.)
You are right that it is subjective. You can't tell a work will suck until it's done. And it might be hated now, but loved later ("Oklahoma" was originally panned by critics). I might love it, others might hate it. (For example, I think "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg", "The Story of Adele H", and "La Strada" are masterpieces of art. I have a number of friends who think they're boring.)
I agree that copyright should end, and a work should enter public domain (except for Peter Pan -- Royalties to to a children's hospital and the copyright was extended forever by a special act of Parliment). It's like a playground. The person who built it should have first rights to it, but after a while, when other writers are let in to play with the same toys, they get different results. On the other hand, I'd rather see writers come up with original ideas instead of re-hashing other peoples' work.
I know I'm being snooty about it, but I think a writer who is full of creativity can easily focus on creating new wonderful works, instead of rehashing someone else's work. It is VERY rare that a rehash ever shows staying quality. The only rehash of "Romeo and Juliet" that I've found worthwhile is "West Side Story".
Stories are rehashed because the original captured peoples' imagination and somehow has a staying power. There was something special about it that made that storie (or work of art) rise above others and be noticed as something special. It seems like a writer somehow expects that special quality to transfer to their new work, but rarely are the derivatives anywhere near as good as the original.
Maybe it is worth all the easily ignored derivative work to see the few that are worthwhile (like "West Side Story" and "Forbidden Planet"), but I still feel a writer's talents are better used creating original work than re-doing someone else's creative ideas.
Try reading the books. I never said anything about the movie (and I'm referring ONLY to the 1939 movie, with Judy Garland, not any of the others).
Oh, and as a small point of trivia, when, in the movie, you see the Witch prepare to order the Flying Monkeys, notice that the monkey with her hands her a strange hat. That's a small reference to an important point in the book (that matters later in the book, but not in the movie). The monkeys were not grotesque and were not evil. Whoever had possession of the magic hat could control the monkeys 3 times. The only reason they followed the witch's orders were because of the hat.
And in the book the witches were not as frightening. Mean, but not nearly the threat they were in the movie. Miss Gulch, who wanted to kill Toto, was NEVER in the book. There was hardly any development of the Kansas characters in the book (including the Professor who, in Oz, was the Wizard and other characters). In the book, it is also NOT a dream.
There are a HUGE number of liberties taken in the movie that have nothing to do with the book. There is also a LOT that was omitted from the movie, like what happened to the other characters at the end. (And one last point of trivia: as I said, in the books, Oz is NOT a dream. It is real and in the 5th book, when Uncle Henry realizes the farm is failing, Dorothy has them all transported to Oz where Uncle Henry and Auntie Em run a farm in Munchkinland from then on.)
I agree with the point about copyright expiration. I like seeing new works that can include old works (for example, "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"), but I think there's a limit. I guess I should point out that I'm a writer (I started my current business to finance a digital film production company so I could shoot my own scripts MY way instead of selling them and seeing them re-written 20 times). Maybe that's why I feel the original creation should be treated with respect. It's also why I don't like remakes. For example, "Casablanca" was a great film, and there's no need to remake it. The remake of "Psycho" a few years ago seemed totally pointless to me -- especially since it was a "shot for shot" remake.
If a writer/artist can't come up with something original, I'd rather not see them do anything with it at all. I don't like ripping off another person's work, signing your name, and passing it off as new (which is one reason I never bothered to see "Treasure Planet" -- the book is great and if it were done RIGHT on film, there's no need to do it with spaceships instead).
I don't like Disney neutering, as you say (good term) work. I think it's wrong, and I think it's just as wrong to take something tame (like Oz) and darken it. I'd rather see the people involved showing enough creativity and imagination to come up with something on their own.
On the other hand, I do have to add that "Forbidden Planet" (a re-write of "The Tempest") is one of my favorite SF films.
I've never heard of American McGee, but I used to read the Oz books to my students when I taught elementary school. After looking over the American McGee site, I can't see that it has any real, significant connection to the originals. For one thing, there's a reference to "the darker side of Oz" and Frank Baum made it clear there was no darker side. His intent was to create a land of wonder and amazement without the creatures that caused kids nightmares.
I've never been able to stand it when movies or updates sanitized stories for mass consumption, and I find I'm feeling the same way about taknig something that was created with specific intent and twisting that intent into something opposite of it.
So, after checking out the site, it looks to me like American McGee took someone else's creation and re-did it without a lot of what made the original special. It'd be kind of like taking the Terminator series and remaking it without evil robots. So am I missing something about American McGee, or is it the same kind of "ignore the original and remake in our way" stuff as what I just described?
While a Q&A session with the President might be nice, very few presidents would agree to it (at least with Congress), merely on the grounds that it clouds the checks and balances between the Legislative and Executive branches.
It might blur the distinction of responsibilities and power, but, in the long run, I think it would increase the C&B. I doubt any Prez would like it, because it would make him responsible to more people. On the other hand, making him responsible, directly, for his policies to our representatives, would increase his answerability to the public. Of course, I'm sure that's why no President would want it. (Maybe we can get it through Congress and have it arrive on a President's desk before he leaves office?)
The president needs to get majority votes in both Senate and House to get bills passed.
That's true, but while the majority party is the same party as the President, the opposition can often be squelched. While filibusters and other tactics are still possible, when the majority party is the same as the President's party, it is VERY rare you'll see them override a veto, much less impeach. (Can you picture either party impeaching a President of their affilation?)
Personally, I've always preferred to see Congress to have a majority that was opposite whatever the President was. While that isn't necessary, as long as the majority party is the same as the President's party, the President does not have to defend his position.
While you reference a vote of no confidence, requiring the President to respond to the opposition would NOT mean a system using a "no confidence" vote that could put the President out of office. Reagan had several cases where he pushed bills through Congress and lost. It didn't take away his power.
In Virginia, the Governer's term is 4 years (I think that's standard for all states), but with the provision that no Governer can serve 2 terms in a row. Right now our Gov. is Mark Warner, which means he can't run for re-election, but he can run for another term 4 years after he gets out of office.
I like that because it also gives us what is usually enough time to find any skeletons that were shoved in the closet during a term.
I think you've hit on a major problem with American politics. Because your lead politician and figurehead is never engaged in discussion, his views are never, ever questioned. I think this may have had a more general effect on the level of debate in the country in general.
Exactly! It's easy for a President to hide behind their office. Nixon did it before he resigned, and Bush has done it all along. At least Clinton, when Monica-gate came up, addressed the country and faced questioning (that wasn't held confidential). He may have lied (or, as he would put it, exaggerated), but he faced others.
So have you seen indications that the "Prime Minister's Question Time" actually helps public debate in GB? I'd think if it were required in the US, with cameras allowed, we'd be hearing about it what happened on the news and the President's answers (as well as the opposition's questions) would be continually before the public.
There's one thing I'd like to see changed in the American governmental structure. It's not the election, but I think it would have an effect. In Great Britain, the Prime Minister has to defend his position to the opposition. (I don't know whether it's in the House of Lords or Commons. Could a British reader elaborate on this?) I've seen this several times on "The News Hour" (and now, once I've mentioned a PBS program, I'm sure I'll be branded a liberal and a lot of people will use that as cause to ignore anything I say), with Tony Blair having to justify and explain his reasoning for his position or actions.
While it isn't actually part of the election, I think if the President had to go before the Senate (or House) and personally and directly (in other words, he can't send a Secretary or spin doctor) respond to the opposition, the public (at least those who watch C-SPAN and those who see the mis-representative sound bytes on the news) would know more about who is in office (and possibly up for re-election). During the past 4 years, the President had very few news conferences. There were frequent reports that when he made public appearances, attendees were vetted to make sure they were supporters. The same was done in campaign stops.
I'm not targeting Bush, it's just he's a good example. I think the President, who is elected by the full country, should be held responsible to tell us why he is making the choices he makes -- and should be held to that by the opposition party so he can either clearly explain what he is doing, or reveal that his reasoning is suspect. While this would not have effected Monica-gate, it would have benefited all of us during Clinton's terms as well, since he would have to answer to Republicans about what he is doing.
While it's not part of the election, once a President gets in office, he's basically campaigning for re-election. This would mean he can't spin everything and would have to continually face challenging questions about what he is doing. I think it'd effect elections in the long run, because we'd be more aware of how a sitting President makes his decisions.
did we learn nothing from the Judge Dredd film
Yep.
1) Some of us (like film buffs) learned that it was pretty wretched and not nearly finely crafted enough, like, for example, 8 1/2, Rear Window, Fahrenheit 451, or 2001: ASO, to be called a film. It's more in the movie, or even down to the "flick" category.
2) Some movies are better left unseen until they hit the dollar theatre or HBO.
3) Putting a top draw star in a production does not mean it'll be worth watching.
I'd say some of use learned a lot from "Judge Dredd". Oh -- and are you sure you shouldn't mention "Demolition Man", with reference to the seen where the Warden's eye was cut out and used to pass the biometric scan? Or "Red Dwarf" where Lister takes the hand that was blown off a person to use for the scan to open a secured door?
for a hot chick is with me
/.ers have of NOT having a hot chick with us on the weekend are false -- so that means Geeks can do fun things and can even date!
Hey, that's right. If the world is still new, than all those memories most of us
I guess that means my memories of the "old days" when K-Kool had meaning are false, as well...
Of course, this could be true. It could also be true that the universe was created last Thursday
Oh, great! It had to be a Thursday! I never could quite get the hang of Thursdays.
I need to include a piece of background to make my point.
All Christian churches use the Bible. When Jesus was alive, the Old Testament was already intact, however the New Testament was put together by what is now the Catholic church. Until Martin Luther, ALL Christian doctrine came ONLY from the Catholic church, and even later, after the Reformation, many Protestant churches still depended on teachings that were derived from teachings from the Catholic church.
What most people don't know is that not only did the Church originally have no problem with things like prostitution, but that a number of other changes were made throughout the years (like banning marriage for priests because they would leave their estates to their kids -- so by banning marriage, they left their estates to the church). One of the was that, for a good while, not only was there no problem, in Christianity with same-sex marriages, but there were actually Christian ceremonies for same-sex marriages.
And, if you go back to Jesus, his point was that our focus was to love God first, and others second -- to treat all with love. With that in mind, it seems pretty narrow minded for Christians to treat homosexuals with the same hatred and ignorance they once reserved (at least in America) for non-whites.