Seriously, what is with Microsoft's obsession with The Matrix as of late? Did anybody else vomit when you saw their little Matrix spoof at (I think it was) Comdex? Way to ruin a classic! Now whenever I watch that show, I can't help but see Bill in the place of Laurence Fishburne. And Keanu Reeves keeps getting replaced by horrible images of Steve sweating and screaming "Developers, developers, developers..."
But even back then, I had this gnawing suspicion that 18-month software development cycles could somehow hurt the platform. Before the tide really turned, however, I switched to PCs. I had joined PC Magazine, and the editorial staff used them.
That's the Mac's problem! He has nailed it! Apple develops new and vastly improved features (in the range of 150+) - basically an overhaul of the operating system - every 18 months. Rather than this whole OS X thing, they should have just created a new theme for OS 9 (oooh, maybe with Green highlights) and changed its name every so often...
If you can't taste the sarcasm, just smile and nod...
Well... provided they are not current or former Microsoft employees! Boy, can you imagine Microsoft with absolute power? But then again, I don't know how much more corrupt they can get...
Sorry, read the fine print toward the bottom of the page on items you can put in the satellite: "The item(s) that the winning bidder wants to put on the spacecraft will be limited by size, weight and other characteristics, and will be subject to approval by SpaceDev and the United States government."
Your payload has to be approved by the US government. Sorry but no frickin satellites with frickin laser beams attached to their wings for you...
I realize there is a difference between character and performance.
Here's a partial list of how I would define a performance as "good" or "bad:" 1. Is the performance appropriate for the character? I believe Serkis' performance is very on-par with the character portrayed by Tolkien. I gave the summary of Gollum's character to show how his performance is on-par. As for screen time, I don't think it was too much. He did have a lot, but as Gandalf forshadows, he does play a very key part in the end. Most of the time he got helps to delineate his character - his schizophrenic struggle and consequently his untrustworthiness. Serkis' performance isn't over-the-top. It rather is appropriate of the character. 2. Is the performance consistent? Again, yes. Serkis is the same schizophrenic Gollum throughout the whole film. 3. Expressiveness: the animators did a wonderful job with Gollum's body language and particularly his facial expressions and eyes. Take for example, the scene in which Gollum decides to have "her" kill off the nasty little hobbitses. His evil smirk and dark, squinted eyes give the audience a sense of his deep malice and insanity.
The list goes on.
If Lucas meant Jar-Jar to be annoying, then yes, his performance is "good." I think Serkis' performance as Gollum is very close to how Tolkien portrays the character in the books and therefore also "good." You may have pictured Gollum differently than I did, though, which would lead to your differing evaluation of his performance.
"this type of crap is for mal adjusted dorks who cannot handle dealing with real people and real situations AKA life. these are the real geeks. YIKES."
Wow. I am completely speechless. So, what you're saying is that people who enjoy LoTR or Tron or Star Wars or Star Trek or any movie in which the audience has a chance to escape from the "real world" AKA life are the real dorks and these movies are for these "real" dorks who cannot deal with real people and real life?
We - yes, I guess I would have to be included in the "real dorks" catagory as I really enjoyed the LoTR books and the movies - enjoy escaping from life and our problems in it by watching these kind of movies. You, on the other hand, do what? Program a few hundred lines of code to make yourself feel better? Post comments on/.? I really want to know how you deal with life. How do you purge your anger and hatred after dealing with someone who doesn't even know what a mouse does? How do you deal with life that qualifies you as "not a geek" - even though you read/. ("News for nerds - stuff that matters")?
It failed to draw you into the storyline? You were left without emotional interest in the outcome?
Let me get this straight:
You have a wife, and yet you could not connect with the characters? If they failed, the Uruks would have gone into the caves and massacred the women and children. The cross-cutting between the battle and the terrified families huddled in the caves failed to create any emotional connection? Seeing any "able-bodied men" - most of whom had "seen too many winters, or too few" - pulled away from their crying families, some never to see them again, did not in any way make you sympathize with them? Seeing terrified teenagers don weapons and armor failled to create any emotional interest in wheter they lived or died? Seeing the thousands of faces as they looked on in horror at the ten thousand approaching Uruks - who didn't care wheter they lived or died as they were "bred for a single purpose - to destroy the world of men" - failed to emotionally connect you in any way with the characters?
I don't know about you - but watching all of the above, a very strong emotional connection was created in me for the characters and the outcome.
Just one suggestion: read the books (again if you already have). Gollum had the ring for quite some time; it drove him mad. His only goal in life is to get it back. It has completely taken over his mind.
As for the worst overacting cartoon: um, did you see Episode I?? If you did, how can you put Gollum below Jar-Jar Binks??
"Meesa Golllum. Meesa wants dat ring dat yousa got." Or how about: "Yousa saved me! Dat Faramir hesa was going to shoot meesa. Mount Doom? No, meesa can't go dersa. It is no goodsa - meesa will die-sa. OK, little hobbits, meesa show yousa the way to Gungan City - er - Mount Doom-sa."
Gollum, on the other hand, is not a rediculous character. Serkis does not overact, IMHO. Gollum is exactly how I pictured him while reading the books and I really have to give Serkis two thumbs up.
There is not meant to be complete closure until the end of RoTK. It's not like they are all separate entities; Tolkien did not write one and then decided that he wanted to write a sequel. They are meant to be read from Book 1 to 6, and consequently the movies are one continual story.
Be patient and rest assured that RoTK will finally deliver your complete closure.
Movies were originally created for and meant to be experienced as a community. They were cheap entertainment in which audiences could escape the world in which they lived and be taken to any place and any time in history. They could escape the mundane lives they lived - even if just for a brief amount of time.
Viewing it in the theater - with a lot of other people - also gives the viewer comfort in that there are other people in the world right now who share their views. The viewer is reassured that somebody else has enjoyed the magnificent work of Tolkien. He/she is not alone. And in today's world, that is a very comforting thought.
You need to hook the power supply up to some metal plates in the seat (or something).
The possibilities are endless... For instance, say your annoying neighbor comes over and wants to sit in it. After 20 minutes, he still won't get out - AND he starts to screw with your computer. Fed up, you grab the wireless remote. At the simple press of a button, he gets 20AMPS up the wazoo!
OK, it says that it gets around 35 miles-per-gallon. Sure, you can go around to fast-food joints and *er* ask for their grease. But who wants to do that everytime they have to "fill up"? What a nightmare. If you went to the store and bought the veggie oil, you'd spend like $3 per gallon!
So, down to the point. I'm a student and I already find it hard to swallow the $1.45 per gallon for normal gasoline. I'd be spending twice as much for the oil - and for what? My car already gets 32 mpg. And, it doesn't smell like french fries afterward!
It's a good idea because it could be the beginning of a trend into other alternative fuel sources, but unless it gets 100 mpg it's not worth my time (or money).
Maybe if someone found a way to convert old 486's into a useable fuel... Or maybe politicians! Or how about those free AOL CDs that you get in the mail every other week! The possibilities are endless;-)
As noted in another post, Apple could embed something into the mobo that OS X would depend on. No genuine Apple, no OS X.
However, they won't. Even the remote possibility that the hardware/software could be hacked - look at CD copy protection, Mac OS X Update CDs, the stupid 3.5" bay on G3 and G4s, etc - will have Apple Execs wetting themselves. All have been hacked.
Bottom line is the geeks always win. Someone always finds a way around it.
So, if Apple did go to x86, they'd be digging a grave for every last dime that has been spent on hardware engineering for the last 20 years. Nobody would buy genuine hardware (for $3K) when they can build it themselves (for $500).
Slashdot Mirror
I just use the force:
These aren't the iPods you're looking for.
I just remembered that it's from Two Towers, not Return of the King. I really need to get some sleep...
Why do you lay your troubles on an already troubled mind? Can't you see we grow tired of your... malcontent - your... fearmongering?
Too long have you watched my iPod. Too long have you haunted its backlight.
Seriously, what is with Microsoft's obsession with The Matrix as of late? Did anybody else vomit when you saw their little Matrix spoof at (I think it was) Comdex? Way to ruin a classic! Now whenever I watch that show, I can't help but see Bill in the place of Laurence Fishburne. And Keanu Reeves keeps getting replaced by horrible images of Steve sweating and screaming "Developers, developers, developers..."
"We are exploring ways to add value to Windows XP."
To me, that sounds like newspeak for "We are exploring ways to get existing XP users to pony up extra cash."
I read it as Microsoft admitting XP currently has no value. But maybe I'm just cynical...
Ralph: IBM and Apple were in the closet making processors and I saw one of the processors and then the processor looked at me.
Wait a minute! You mean I'm scraping couch change together each month for a non top-of-the-line product??
.com. Can you imagine: new Internet Service Pigeon companies starting up all over the place?
That's it, time to buy some pigeons.
I wonder if pigeons will become the next
But even back then, I had this gnawing suspicion that 18-month software development cycles could somehow hurt the platform. Before the tide really turned, however, I switched to PCs. I had joined PC Magazine, and the editorial staff used them.
That's the Mac's problem! He has nailed it! Apple develops new and vastly improved features (in the range of 150+) - basically an overhaul of the operating system - every 18 months. Rather than this whole OS X thing, they should have just created a new theme for OS 9 (oooh, maybe with Green highlights) and changed its name every so often...
If you can't taste the sarcasm, just smile and nod...
Here are the developer prices for the iPod:
10GB: $239
20GB: $319
40GB: $399
The programmers will have all the power
YES!!! It's about time!!!!
I, for one, welcome our new programmer overlords!
Well... provided they are not current or former Microsoft employees! Boy, can you imagine Microsoft with absolute power? But then again, I don't know how much more corrupt they can get...
Sorry, read the fine print toward the bottom of the page on items you can put in the satellite: "The item(s) that the winning bidder wants to put on the spacecraft will be limited by size, weight and other characteristics, and will be subject to approval by SpaceDev and the United States government."
Your payload has to be approved by the US government. Sorry but no frickin satellites with frickin laser beams attached to their wings for you...
I realize there is a difference between character and performance.
Here's a partial list of how I would define a performance as "good" or "bad:"
1. Is the performance appropriate for the character? I believe Serkis' performance is very on-par with the character portrayed by Tolkien. I gave the summary of Gollum's character to show how his performance is on-par. As for screen time, I don't think it was too much. He did have a lot, but as Gandalf forshadows, he does play a very key part in the end. Most of the time he got helps to delineate his character - his schizophrenic struggle and consequently his untrustworthiness. Serkis' performance isn't over-the-top. It rather is appropriate of the character.
2. Is the performance consistent? Again, yes. Serkis is the same schizophrenic Gollum throughout the whole film.
3. Expressiveness: the animators did a wonderful job with Gollum's body language and particularly his facial expressions and eyes. Take for example, the scene in which Gollum decides to have "her" kill off the nasty little hobbitses. His evil smirk and dark, squinted eyes give the audience a sense of his deep malice and insanity.
The list goes on.
If Lucas meant Jar-Jar to be annoying, then yes, his performance is "good." I think Serkis' performance as Gollum is very close to how Tolkien portrays the character in the books and therefore also "good." You may have pictured Gollum differently than I did, though, which would lead to your differing evaluation of his performance.
"this type of crap is for mal adjusted dorks who cannot handle dealing with real people and real situations AKA life. these are the real geeks. YIKES."
/.? I really want to know how you deal with life. How do you purge your anger and hatred after dealing with someone who doesn't even know what a mouse does? How do you deal with life that qualifies you as "not a geek" - even though you read /. ("News for nerds - stuff that matters")?
Wow. I am completely speechless. So, what you're saying is that people who enjoy LoTR or Tron or Star Wars or Star Trek or any movie in which the audience has a chance to escape from the "real world" AKA life are the real dorks and these movies are for these "real" dorks who cannot deal with real people and real life?
We - yes, I guess I would have to be included in the "real dorks" catagory as I really enjoyed the LoTR books and the movies - enjoy escaping from life and our problems in it by watching these kind of movies. You, on the other hand, do what? Program a few hundred lines of code to make yourself feel better? Post comments on
It failed to draw you into the storyline? You were left without emotional interest in the outcome?
Let me get this straight:
You have a wife, and yet you could not connect with the characters? If they failed, the Uruks would have gone into the caves and massacred the women and children. The cross-cutting between the battle and the terrified families huddled in the caves failed to create any emotional connection? Seeing any "able-bodied men" - most of whom had "seen too many winters, or too few" - pulled away from their crying families, some never to see them again, did not in any way make you sympathize with them? Seeing terrified teenagers don weapons and armor failled to create any emotional interest in wheter they lived or died? Seeing the thousands of faces as they looked on in horror at the ten thousand approaching Uruks - who didn't care wheter they lived or died as they were "bred for a single purpose - to destroy the world of men" - failed to emotionally connect you in any way with the characters?
I don't know about you - but watching all of the above, a very strong emotional connection was created in me for the characters and the outcome.
Just one suggestion: read the books (again if you already have). Gollum had the ring for quite some time; it drove him mad. His only goal in life is to get it back. It has completely taken over his mind.
As for the worst overacting cartoon: um, did you see Episode I?? If you did, how can you put Gollum below Jar-Jar Binks??
"Meesa Golllum. Meesa wants dat ring dat yousa got."
Or how about: "Yousa saved me! Dat Faramir hesa was going to shoot meesa. Mount Doom? No, meesa can't go dersa. It is no goodsa - meesa will die-sa. OK, little hobbits, meesa show yousa the way to Gungan City - er - Mount Doom-sa."
Gollum, on the other hand, is not a rediculous character. Serkis does not overact, IMHO. Gollum is exactly how I pictured him while reading the books and I really have to give Serkis two thumbs up.
There is not meant to be complete closure until the end of RoTK. It's not like they are all separate entities; Tolkien did not write one and then decided that he wanted to write a sequel. They are meant to be read from Book 1 to 6, and consequently the movies are one continual story.
Be patient and rest assured that RoTK will finally deliver your complete closure.
One word: community.
Movies were originally created for and meant to be experienced as a community. They were cheap entertainment in which audiences could escape the world in which they lived and be taken to any place and any time in history. They could escape the mundane lives they lived - even if just for a brief amount of time.
Viewing it in the theater - with a lot of other people - also gives the viewer comfort in that there are other people in the world right now who share their views. The viewer is reassured that somebody else has enjoyed the magnificent work of Tolkien. He/she is not alone. And in today's world, that is a very comforting thought.
Just my 2 cents...
Damn! I thought I was cool with my 6 digit one...
It's probably just another ploy by the computer industry to make me upgrade.
You need to hook the power supply up to some metal plates in the seat (or something).
The possibilities are endless... For instance, say your annoying neighbor comes over and wants to sit in it. After 20 minutes, he still won't get out - AND he starts to screw with your computer. Fed up, you grab the wireless remote. At the simple press of a button, he gets 20AMPS up the wazoo!
Just an idea...
Duh! Someone has to be the cannon fodder!
It's so fulfilling when your entire city gets wiped out while you sit and watch - all because you only have one button (or no button).
Quit whining!
MWNY - Steve Jobs: Oh my God! Apple's gone from a one-button mouse to a no-button mouse!
I'm going to assume you're naive and not stupid. It has to change? No, your ability to read manuals has to change. Command-click - duh!
Question to you: how to you expect to return it without a reciept?
Quit whining...
So, down to the point. I'm a student and I already find it hard to swallow the $1.45 per gallon for normal gasoline. I'd be spending twice as much for the oil - and for what? My car already gets 32 mpg. And, it doesn't smell like french fries afterward!
It's a good idea because it could be the beginning of a trend into other alternative fuel sources, but unless it gets 100 mpg it's not worth my time (or money).
Maybe if someone found a way to convert old 486's into a useable fuel... Or maybe politicians! Or how about those free AOL CDs that you get in the mail every other week! The possibilities are endless ;-)
However, they won't. Even the remote possibility that the hardware/software could be hacked - look at CD copy protection, Mac OS X Update CDs, the stupid 3.5" bay on G3 and G4s, etc - will have Apple Execs wetting themselves. All have been hacked.
Bottom line is the geeks always win. Someone always finds a way around it.
So, if Apple did go to x86, they'd be digging a grave for every last dime that has been spent on hardware engineering for the last 20 years. Nobody would buy genuine hardware (for $3K) when they can build it themselves (for $500).
J/K I have no idea what the hell it is worth (if anything).
BTW, he's been voted the most annoying person on God's green earth! Check it out! He's #1 on the annoying list!
LOL