I would actually agree with your observation. My point was rather that you really have no clue what the next Pixar movie is really going to be about, but you still go see it because, after all, it is a Pixar film. Its going to be good.
but a recognizable name means people will at least look at and consider your work, especially if your recognized name is associated with quality.
Absolutely. Consider the past couple trailers for the Pixar films. Both "Monsters Inc." and "Finding Nemo" contained very little about the actual story. In fact, after seeing the trailer for "Finding Nemo", I was not exactly enthused about the story. However, I knew from experience that Pixar uses excellent stories and expressive, fascinating characters, and so I, like millions of others, went and say the film and loved it. Pixar has built such a good reputation that they could almost just display a screen that said " - A Pixar Film - Summer 2005" and people would flock to see it.
I would also like to point out what I see that makes them great. They combine a fantastic story with great characters told through cutting edge computer graphics with content that is great entertainment for kids while having enough sophistication in their humor to highly entertain adults (note: this means no "adult" humor in the bad sense of the word). This is why Pixar is now the reigning champ, and as long as they stick to this formula, they will never lose that title.
While I agree with your comments regarding artistry and so forth, I must point out the errors in your post. It took 14 months of filming for the three films. Each film then each required approximately a year for post-production, special effects, and music. All in all, it took about 8 years from conception to finish to release the trilogy.
All films were photographed simultaneously to save costs (and avoid aging actors) with a budget of $300 million (roughly $100 million per film). This does not make it any less of a feat -- rather, quite the opposite. The scale of this project is almost beyond belief. Watch the special features on the extended DVD to see what I mean. You will either have incredible admiration for all of the effort expended, or you will question whether these Kiwi's have way too much free time on their hands!
I believe that Peter Jackson deserves the best director because of the amazing amount of quality work that he put into the picture. No director in recent memory has gone to such lengths to push his movie to great heights as has been seen by Peter Jackson. He had fantastic attention to detail in the writing and editing of the script, the presentation of the actors, and the visual details that captured the very spirit of Tolkien's work.
It is an understatement to say that the movie was massive in scale, and he coordinated everything with amazing skill while keeping the enthusiasm high with all of the people involved. Name me another director this year that has put so much work and accomplished anywhere near the same results. While there are certainly many fine directors out there, Peter Jackson deserves attention for his courage, innovation, and just plain determination. He has created a masterpiece the likes of which we are not likely to see again for many years.
I am truly intrigued about PostgreSQL. I have had a lot of experience with Oracle so I am familiar with higher level functionality. However, my only experience with free databases is with MySQL. While I enjoy its simplicity and speed, I would also like to have the flexibility to upgrade to the more powerful features as needed (triggers, stored procedures, etc.). I also have concerns for stability and security with MySQL. Therefore I have a few questions for those who would respond:
Does PostgreSQL have a good GUI component for direct database manipulation?
I understand that PostgreSQL requires cygwin to run on a Windows platform. Since my company is a Windows shop for now (I have not yet been able to convince them to move to Linux) this is an important issue for me. How big of a performance hit is there for running through the cygwin interface? In other words, is PostgreSQL faster than MySQL in Windows?
Are there plans to go to a native Windows platform?
Absolutely. I wish I had mod points because you stated exactly what I have been thinking when I see people complain about ripoffs. Peter Jackson has done an admirable job in balancing this, in my opinion. Afterall, there are many people who would actually rather own the theatrical release than the extended editions.
I used to think that the Scouring of the Shire seemed out of place in the Lord of the Rings, but I eventually realized that Tolkien must have put it there for a reason
SPOILER ALERT
This is why I am disappointed that these scenes will not at least appear on the DVD. The Scouring of the Shire was actually my favorite part of the books. It really wrapped up the story of Merry, Pippin, Sam, and Frodo. It showed more fully the sacrifices made in a very bittersweet way -- especially as you see Frodo, who risked so much to save the Shire, relegated to a side-note among his own people. Merry and Pippin, who really did not contribute much (with the possible exception of Merry) to the overall victory.
And this is where I see the movies as a departure from the books. The books were really about four hobbits who helped change the world. Aragorn was a major character, but the story really wasn't about him. In the movies, however, Aragorn has really taken center stage. Now, I do not mind the change, and I am a huge fan of the movies. However, this change in philosophy is certainly evident in the omission of the Scouring.
However, this is purely conjecture. I certainly hope that the movie does not end in Gondor, and even if no Scouring occurs, I feel it is necessary to conclude the story in the Shire. Afterall, Sam needs to marry Rose!
Pardon my little chuckle at your own mis-type... I assume you mean that I am a moron not someone marooned on a desert island somewhere. You are, indeed, correct. I blame my goof on a lack of sleep as the post was written after a very long, mind-numbing day. I hope you will forgive me for my error.
Quite honestly, I like many of the new changes in the "Special Edition". For example, I liked the addition of windows in the Cloud City scenes. It really did open it up and make it feel more like it was... well, a cloud city! The battle scene was also well done at the end of Star Wars. These changes I can see being justified by the "we could not afford them at the time" excuse.
However, there were two scenes that bothered me greatly: the aforementioned Guido scene (shudder) and the new musical number in Jabba's palace. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Guido scene totally changes your view of Han Solo. The same is the case for the "musical" number. It completely wrecks the mood of Jabba's palace which was to be dark and forboding. In both cases, Lucas has blunted his original vision and diminished the series as a result.
Lucas, if you are listening, please replace these two scenes with the original -- or at the very least, release the films in their original format. If you are not listening, perhaps you should give it a try. It certainly couldn't hurt given your last few tries...
You know, it seems to me from all that I have read that I would be far more entertained to read all of the fan speculations about the film instead of the film itself. It would certainly be a lot cheaper, and probably a lot more interesting too.
In my mind, "The Matrix" is a standalone movie. Did they make any sequels?
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I agree with your point, thus my last statement "Maybe we are so busy using our technology that we have forgotten how to use our minds." I think this could have a lot to do with the decline. My point about fewer people being able to invent was more showing the point of how much they accomplished with fewer people whose lives were dedicated toward that goal. Statistically, we have a lot more professional "inventers" today than they did in ancient times.
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
*cough* so the single parent families are screwed, then?
Not at all. However, a strong family with a mother and father have proven to be better for society. With the dramatic increase in divorce rates in the past several decades, we can also see a decline in test scores and increases in crime. This is not an attack against single parents -- I know many excellent single parents who are raising good kids -- but the statistics show that a two-parent family (that is, a male and femail) produces better kids than a single parent family. It should be preferred over a single parent family, but that does not mean that single parent family cannot also work out well. It is just a lot more difficult. Sadly, there is often not a choice in the matter.
You make some very good points, and I agree with everything that you said. I am intrigued, but not necessarily sold on his proofs. I would have to read the book (and I might just do that if I can find the time) to make a better decision on that, but I found it interesting in that it supports my own observations and theories -- though I have admittedly little factual proof at this time.
While many creationists attack the big bang theory, the point you bring up here is actually supported in the Bible. Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22 (as well as other passages) speak of God "spreading out the heavens like a curtain." The term heavens refers not to the atmosphere but to the spaces in which the planets and stars exist.
This sounds an aweful lot like the big bang you describe. Perhaps the Bible is not as off-base scientifically as many believe.
I found this last part the most intriguing, and it is something that I have suspected for a long time. When you consider that in ancient times it took 9 out of every 10 people just to produce enough food to feed everyone, it makes the accomplishments and inventions of those times even more astounding.
We are building our new technology on the backs of the inventiveness of our ancestors. We don't have to re-invent the wheel... or the combustion engine... or depth perspective art. It has already been done for us. So while our technology seems to be advancing at an incredible rate, this does not mean that we as a people have improved in our mental capacity. Maybe we are so busy using our technology that we have forgotten how to use our minds.
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Amen! This is one thing that has bothered me in today's society. It is assumed that because women do not make money or invent new technologies or lead successful companies that they are somehow inferior. The fact is that men and geared biologically and mentally to strive for what is commonly referred to as "achievement", but nearly every achievement can probably be traced back to the man's mother and her wise care and raising of him. Man affects the present. It is the teaching of the mother in the home that affects the future.
Amen! I could not have said it better myself. The fact is that the people who attack SUV drivers probably have just as many issues in their own lives that could be listed as issues. Nobody is perfect. We need to keep our noses out of places where they do not belong. Besides, there are certainly more important and dangerous practices that can be questioned as opposed to owning an SUV which may or may not be justified (can we really say for sure?).
Yes, the most expensive part of the operation is the allocating of new memory. There are times when you do need to build a string one segment at a time. For example, if you are building a query string:
SELECT name, address, city, state, zip FROM employees WHERE sys_user_id = 25 AND hire_date > '01/01/03'
You might very well have all of the columns in an array, so you would build the query string by adding each element to the array one at a time. You could also build the WHERE clause in a similar fashion. The way to get around the memory allocation is to declare the query string variable to hopefully be large enough to handle most queries (say 256 characters) and then adjust it on the off chance of going over that limit. Of course, in a low memory situation, you would have to be a lot more careful, but most programmers do not find themselves in that situation these days. If limited memory is an issue, then memory allocation size becomes more important than execution speed. Programming is the art of tradeoffs.
This can also have a huge impact on dynamic arrays of data. If your array has to reallocate for every new record, it can be very slow. The best dynamic array libraries offer you some control over how large the initial database is and how much it will grow by when the database is too small. If you consider adding 1000 records to a array that grows by 100 records (100 records, then resized to 200, then 300, etc) compared to a array that grows 1 record at a time, it will take 10 allocations in the first array while the second array will require 1000 allocations! It is that understanding of the basics that allows you to avoid these costly mistakes.
Maybe that wasn't the best example, but the basic idea was in regard to dynamic memory allocation. If you are building a dynamic string one character at a time (or a dynamic array one record at a time), for each addition a new memory chunk needs to be allocated that is large enough to hold the original string plus the new character(expensive), the contents copied, the new data appended, and the old memory released. If, however, you either preallocate the memory to a larger value (say 50 characters) or you append the characters in larger groups (10 characters at a time), you will reduce the number of new memory allocations and therefore improve performance dramatically.
I respectfully disagree. Afterall, the argument could be made that an understanding of HTML really isn't that important; rather the web developer should spend their time getting to know Dreamweaver or Frontpage. There are several problems with ignoring the basics. For one thing, when you find yourself in a situation where either the tool is unavailable or the tool cannot accomplish the desired effect, you have no idea how to proceed since there is no understanding of the framework (ie. A Frontpage designer trying to fix their HTML). Also, as fewer people understand the basics, there is less innovation and more inefficiencies. For example, knowing how memory allocation and character string structures work helps make string generation faster in code. If you didn't know any better, you might concatenate a string one character at a time not realizing the incredible inefficiency you have just caused. Libraries and tools are great for making our jobs easier, but having a knowledge of the basic building blocks is essential to know how to use those tools wisely.
Lastly, by understanding the basic framework of things, it also allows you to develop and design new improvements or innovations on the older ideas to increase capability or efficiency. If we forget the building blocks, we severely limit our potential down the road by locking ourselves into the inadaquacies of the past.
Shiflett spends most of the introduction convincing the reader that this is a useful book and it seems that the start of most chapters is another few sentences telling me why the chapter is incredibly useful for me to read. I felt like yelling "I'm convinced, I'm convinced."
This may have been the first sign of trouble. I always hate it when salespeople or authors waste my time telling me what I already have grasped and understood. After a while, I start to question whether I really should be interested it in anymore if they are so concerned that I won't be.
I think I will try to check this out at the library for a quick refresher course, but it doesn't sound like one to add to my own library. It is good to see an honest review that doesn't immediately gush with adoration and praise while glossing over the flaws. While another poster questioned the frequency of reviews from honestpuck, the quality of this review leads me to ask him to keep up the good work.
Our understanding is that the battle boiled down to one between Red Hat and SuSE, with the signs earlier this year being that Red Hat might just have got the deal. Ford seemed to want a Red Hat systems admin in Detroit back in January, anyway, but it'd maybe make some sense to use the local player in Germany, and our sources claim SuSE and Red Hat both pitched in the States, so you could maybe view the job as being more about bringing Linux servers into the infrastructure than specifically running Red Hat.
While that doesn't answer your question, just in case you didn't actually read the article, there is a little more information for you.;-)
I chose to respond to your post (from the many Subaru posts) because of this line:
The only drawback is that tall people (taller than 6'1" or so) will probably find the driver's seat uncomfortable.
Bingo! As I stated in my first post, I am rather tall (6'6"), so the Subaru was basically undrivable for me. I find my options rather limited for this reason. I had seriously considered the Outback until I actually tried to get in it. I am still keeping my eyes open for that SUV hybrid.
Slashdot Mirror
I would actually agree with your observation. My point was rather that you really have no clue what the next Pixar movie is really going to be about, but you still go see it because, after all, it is a Pixar film. Its going to be good.
but a recognizable name means people will at least look at and consider your work, especially if your recognized name is associated with quality.
Absolutely. Consider the past couple trailers for the Pixar films. Both "Monsters Inc." and "Finding Nemo" contained very little about the actual story. In fact, after seeing the trailer for "Finding Nemo", I was not exactly enthused about the story. However, I knew from experience that Pixar uses excellent stories and expressive, fascinating characters, and so I, like millions of others, went and say the film and loved it. Pixar has built such a good reputation that they could almost just display a screen that said " - A Pixar Film - Summer 2005" and people would flock to see it.
I would also like to point out what I see that makes them great. They combine a fantastic story with great characters told through cutting edge computer graphics with content that is great entertainment for kids while having enough sophistication in their humor to highly entertain adults (note: this means no "adult" humor in the bad sense of the word). This is why Pixar is now the reigning champ, and as long as they stick to this formula, they will never lose that title.
While I agree with your comments regarding artistry and so forth, I must point out the errors in your post. It took 14 months of filming for the three films. Each film then each required approximately a year for post-production, special effects, and music. All in all, it took about 8 years from conception to finish to release the trilogy.
All films were photographed simultaneously to save costs (and avoid aging actors) with a budget of $300 million (roughly $100 million per film). This does not make it any less of a feat -- rather, quite the opposite. The scale of this project is almost beyond belief. Watch the special features on the extended DVD to see what I mean. You will either have incredible admiration for all of the effort expended, or you will question whether these Kiwi's have way too much free time on their hands!
I believe that Peter Jackson deserves the best director because of the amazing amount of quality work that he put into the picture. No director in recent memory has gone to such lengths to push his movie to great heights as has been seen by Peter Jackson. He had fantastic attention to detail in the writing and editing of the script, the presentation of the actors, and the visual details that captured the very spirit of Tolkien's work.
It is an understatement to say that the movie was massive in scale, and he coordinated everything with amazing skill while keeping the enthusiasm high with all of the people involved. Name me another director this year that has put so much work and accomplished anywhere near the same results. While there are certainly many fine directors out there, Peter Jackson deserves attention for his courage, innovation, and just plain determination. He has created a masterpiece the likes of which we are not likely to see again for many years.
Apparently the news items were released out of order.
I am truly intrigued about PostgreSQL. I have had a lot of experience with Oracle so I am familiar with higher level functionality. However, my only experience with free databases is with MySQL. While I enjoy its simplicity and speed, I would also like to have the flexibility to upgrade to the more powerful features as needed (triggers, stored procedures, etc.). I also have concerns for stability and security with MySQL. Therefore I have a few questions for those who would respond:
Absolutely. I wish I had mod points because you stated exactly what I have been thinking when I see people complain about ripoffs. Peter Jackson has done an admirable job in balancing this, in my opinion. Afterall, there are many people who would actually rather own the theatrical release than the extended editions.
I used to think that the Scouring of the Shire seemed out of place in the Lord of the Rings, but I eventually realized that Tolkien must have put it there for a reason
SPOILER ALERT
This is why I am disappointed that these scenes will not at least appear on the DVD. The Scouring of the Shire was actually my favorite part of the books. It really wrapped up the story of Merry, Pippin, Sam, and Frodo. It showed more fully the sacrifices made in a very bittersweet way -- especially as you see Frodo, who risked so much to save the Shire, relegated to a side-note among his own people. Merry and Pippin, who really did not contribute much (with the possible exception of Merry) to the overall victory.
And this is where I see the movies as a departure from the books. The books were really about four hobbits who helped change the world. Aragorn was a major character, but the story really wasn't about him. In the movies, however, Aragorn has really taken center stage. Now, I do not mind the change, and I am a huge fan of the movies. However, this change in philosophy is certainly evident in the omission of the Scouring.
However, this is purely conjecture. I certainly hope that the movie does not end in Gondor, and even if no Scouring occurs, I feel it is necessary to conclude the story in the Shire. Afterall, Sam needs to marry Rose!
Pardon my little chuckle at your own mis-type... I assume you mean that I am a moron not someone marooned on a desert island somewhere. You are, indeed, correct. I blame my goof on a lack of sleep as the post was written after a very long, mind-numbing day. I hope you will forgive me for my error.
However, there were two scenes that bothered me greatly: the aforementioned Guido scene (shudder) and the new musical number in Jabba's palace. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Guido scene totally changes your view of Han Solo. The same is the case for the "musical" number. It completely wrecks the mood of Jabba's palace which was to be dark and forboding. In both cases, Lucas has blunted his original vision and diminished the series as a result.
Lucas, if you are listening, please replace these two scenes with the original -- or at the very least, release the films in their original format. If you are not listening, perhaps you should give it a try. It certainly couldn't hurt given your last few tries...
You know, it seems to me from all that I have read that I would be far more entertained to read all of the fan speculations about the film instead of the film itself. It would certainly be a lot cheaper, and probably a lot more interesting too.
In my mind, "The Matrix" is a standalone movie. Did they make any sequels?
Here is a page that lists some of the studies. There are many other studies out there that address this issue as well. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/marriage /children.cfm
I agree with your point, thus my last statement "Maybe we are so busy using our technology that we have forgotten how to use our minds." I think this could have a lot to do with the decline. My point about fewer people being able to invent was more showing the point of how much they accomplished with fewer people whose lives were dedicated toward that goal. Statistically, we have a lot more professional "inventers" today than they did in ancient times.
*cough* so the single parent families are screwed, then?
Not at all. However, a strong family with a mother and father have proven to be better for society. With the dramatic increase in divorce rates in the past several decades, we can also see a decline in test scores and increases in crime. This is not an attack against single parents -- I know many excellent single parents who are raising good kids -- but the statistics show that a two-parent family (that is, a male and femail) produces better kids than a single parent family. It should be preferred over a single parent family, but that does not mean that single parent family cannot also work out well. It is just a lot more difficult. Sadly, there is often not a choice in the matter.
You make some very good points, and I agree with everything that you said. I am intrigued, but not necessarily sold on his proofs. I would have to read the book (and I might just do that if I can find the time) to make a better decision on that, but I found it interesting in that it supports my own observations and theories -- though I have admittedly little factual proof at this time.
While many creationists attack the big bang theory, the point you bring up here is actually supported in the Bible. Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22 (as well as other passages) speak of God "spreading out the heavens like a curtain." The term heavens refers not to the atmosphere but to the spaces in which the planets and stars exist. This sounds an aweful lot like the big bang you describe. Perhaps the Bible is not as off-base scientifically as many believe.
I found this last part the most intriguing, and it is something that I have suspected for a long time. When you consider that in ancient times it took 9 out of every 10 people just to produce enough food to feed everyone, it makes the accomplishments and inventions of those times even more astounding.
We are building our new technology on the backs of the inventiveness of our ancestors. We don't have to re-invent the wheel... or the combustion engine... or depth perspective art. It has already been done for us. So while our technology seems to be advancing at an incredible rate, this does not mean that we as a people have improved in our mental capacity. Maybe we are so busy using our technology that we have forgotten how to use our minds.
Amen! This is one thing that has bothered me in today's society. It is assumed that because women do not make money or invent new technologies or lead successful companies that they are somehow inferior. The fact is that men and geared biologically and mentally to strive for what is commonly referred to as "achievement", but nearly every achievement can probably be traced back to the man's mother and her wise care and raising of him. Man affects the present. It is the teaching of the mother in the home that affects the future.
Amen! I could not have said it better myself. The fact is that the people who attack SUV drivers probably have just as many issues in their own lives that could be listed as issues. Nobody is perfect. We need to keep our noses out of places where they do not belong. Besides, there are certainly more important and dangerous practices that can be questioned as opposed to owning an SUV which may or may not be justified (can we really say for sure?).
If only I had some moderation points...
Yes, the most expensive part of the operation is the allocating of new memory. There are times when you do need to build a string one segment at a time. For example, if you are building a query string:
SELECT name, address, city, state, zip FROM employees WHERE sys_user_id = 25 AND hire_date > '01/01/03'
You might very well have all of the columns in an array, so you would build the query string by adding each element to the array one at a time. You could also build the WHERE clause in a similar fashion. The way to get around the memory allocation is to declare the query string variable to hopefully be large enough to handle most queries (say 256 characters) and then adjust it on the off chance of going over that limit. Of course, in a low memory situation, you would have to be a lot more careful, but most programmers do not find themselves in that situation these days. If limited memory is an issue, then memory allocation size becomes more important than execution speed. Programming is the art of tradeoffs.
This can also have a huge impact on dynamic arrays of data. If your array has to reallocate for every new record, it can be very slow. The best dynamic array libraries offer you some control over how large the initial database is and how much it will grow by when the database is too small. If you consider adding 1000 records to a array that grows by 100 records (100 records, then resized to 200, then 300, etc) compared to a array that grows 1 record at a time, it will take 10 allocations in the first array while the second array will require 1000 allocations! It is that understanding of the basics that allows you to avoid these costly mistakes.
Maybe that wasn't the best example, but the basic idea was in regard to dynamic memory allocation. If you are building a dynamic string one character at a time (or a dynamic array one record at a time), for each addition a new memory chunk needs to be allocated that is large enough to hold the original string plus the new character(expensive), the contents copied, the new data appended, and the old memory released. If, however, you either preallocate the memory to a larger value (say 50 characters) or you append the characters in larger groups (10 characters at a time), you will reduce the number of new memory allocations and therefore improve performance dramatically.
I hope this make sense.
I respectfully disagree. Afterall, the argument could be made that an understanding of HTML really isn't that important; rather the web developer should spend their time getting to know Dreamweaver or Frontpage. There are several problems with ignoring the basics. For one thing, when you find yourself in a situation where either the tool is unavailable or the tool cannot accomplish the desired effect, you have no idea how to proceed since there is no understanding of the framework (ie. A Frontpage designer trying to fix their HTML). Also, as fewer people understand the basics, there is less innovation and more inefficiencies. For example, knowing how memory allocation and character string structures work helps make string generation faster in code. If you didn't know any better, you might concatenate a string one character at a time not realizing the incredible inefficiency you have just caused. Libraries and tools are great for making our jobs easier, but having a knowledge of the basic building blocks is essential to know how to use those tools wisely.
Lastly, by understanding the basic framework of things, it also allows you to develop and design new improvements or innovations on the older ideas to increase capability or efficiency. If we forget the building blocks, we severely limit our potential down the road by locking ourselves into the inadaquacies of the past.
Education is never a bad thing. Ignorance is.
Shiflett spends most of the introduction convincing the reader that this is a useful book and it seems that the start of most chapters is another few sentences telling me why the chapter is incredibly useful for me to read. I felt like yelling "I'm convinced, I'm convinced."
This may have been the first sign of trouble. I always hate it when salespeople or authors waste my time telling me what I already have grasped and understood. After a while, I start to question whether I really should be interested it in anymore if they are so concerned that I won't be.
I think I will try to check this out at the library for a quick refresher course, but it doesn't sound like one to add to my own library. It is good to see an honest review that doesn't immediately gush with adoration and praise while glossing over the flaws. While another poster questioned the frequency of reviews from honestpuck, the quality of this review leads me to ask him to keep up the good work.
According to the article:
Our understanding is that the battle boiled down to one between Red Hat and SuSE, with the signs earlier this year being that Red Hat might just have got the deal. Ford seemed to want a Red Hat systems admin in Detroit back in January, anyway, but it'd maybe make some sense to use the local player in Germany, and our sources claim SuSE and Red Hat both pitched in the States, so you could maybe view the job as being more about bringing Linux servers into the infrastructure than specifically running Red Hat.
While that doesn't answer your question, just in case you didn't actually read the article, there is a little more information for you. ;-)
Does anyone know any more details?
I chose to respond to your post (from the many Subaru posts) because of this line:
The only drawback is that tall people (taller than 6'1" or so) will probably find the driver's seat uncomfortable.
Bingo! As I stated in my first post, I am rather tall (6'6"), so the Subaru was basically undrivable for me. I find my options rather limited for this reason. I had seriously considered the Outback until I actually tried to get in it. I am still keeping my eyes open for that SUV hybrid.