Boring, I think: Stallman drones on for three hours about a world of fluffy bunnies, giving Torvalds time to build a 30 foot tall mecha which stomps his adversary into paste in about half a second.
The point is there's enough demand that colours other than black are available, so it is clearly a matter of taste.
And you're still ignoring the topic of the article, which nullifies the point of the original joke (Wizard of Oz reference: not black). Just let it go, or I'll come round and give you a good flogging.
See how educational HD DVDs are? I bet before you didn't know gnats got zits, or even what their butts looked like.
But I can see an up side: cellulite shows up much more clearly in HD, so if we're lucky music will go back to being about music rather than who looks impossibly good in music videos. Then again, if we're really unlucky cellulite will become fashionable instead...
It's possible to make a bus jump a gap like in "Speed" though it takes a ramp and explosives -- put a ramp and explosives into the plot and it becomes plausible.
The ramp is a possibility, but then you'd have to answer the more obvious question "what idiotic public works department would waste money building a ramp at the end of an uncompleted overpass and why?" (not a problem at ground level, where a pile of earth or gravel makes some sense, but then you don't have a gap to jump). Primed explosives have the same problem (who does blasting on a raised overpass?), but adds the question of whether the blast would lift such a heavy vehicle without setting off the bomb on board or causing other major damage; armoured vehicles have enough difficulty surviving that kind of thing and I doubt a typical bus would fare any better, so that isn't even remotely plausible.
If they used a crane to carry it over the break, then put the crane in the plot.
High capacity cranes pivot from a central point*: if the tangental velocity of the crane's arm is slower than the bus it would have to engage and lift instantly (not possible), otherwise either it would slow the bus down (kaboom), its winch gear would be torn out. And that's assuming it doesn't topple, and there's some kind of crane that can be guided accurately and quickly enough to grab the bus at its centre of gravity (it has to be wheels-down when it lands, remember), and have the necessary lift capacity in the grab mechanism (not possible with electromagnets), and have a fast enough grab mechanism (ruling out a hydraulic claw) and will keep the bus aligned with the direction of movement (not possible with cables), and be available at short notice...well, you get the point: again, you're replacing one physical impossibility with a whole host of physical impossibilities that underworked nerds** will criticise instead.
You can see why script writers*** go for the lesser evil; at least it's over quickly.
It's not like there's some standard of historical accuracy to worry about.
Which is worse: a story that occasionally ignores physics or one that has no logical consistency whatsoever? The target demographic for action films is clearly more sensitive to inexplicable plot developments than inaccurate physics (if they could handle inexplicable plots they'd be watching something by Bergman instead).
Of course, if they had a crane that could catch and lift a bus going 50 mph, there may not have been a movie.
So observing correct physics wouldn't be all bad;)
*I won't go into the exact mathematics of levers, counterweights and inertia, but suffice to say the greater lifting capacity and arm length of a crane, the slower it moves. And cranes don't absorb transverse forces at all well.
Because the same computing power used to render can also be used to do the physics properly -- but it generally isn't.
Of course not. Movies have had real cars jumping over real gaps for years, and physics dictates that there's a limit to what you can achieve with that technique; it's pretty much been done. So the options are (1) limit yourself to what is physically possible regardless of whether you're using CGI or not and reuse old stunts, or (2) admit the whole thing is fantasy and go nuts. The studios have gone with option 2, because it's more reliably profitable than option 1, which relies more on talented acting and decent writing to carry a film (you see the problem there).
Considering the action genre relies on each release being more spectacular and improbable than the last, it would have died long ago if not for CGI. Whether that would be a good thing is a matter of opinion, though I'd point out that the crud is often a test-bed for the techniques that end up being used tastefully.
Another irony is that some movies that look cartoonish (Pixar films, for example) have more reasonable physics than movies that are meant to integrate the computer-generated effects seamlessly.
Not really true. If you refer to Cinefex you'll find all sorts of cheats and tweaks that defy real physics, and these are done because adhering to strict physics often looks too mechanical (it's not uncommon to have different values for gravity and wind resistance in different scenes, for example). It only looks more realistic because it's stylistically self-consistent and there's no real-world physics for comparison; nothing enters the uncanny valley, so errors are less obvious.
A local teenager, who spent most of his time in the basement reading Slashdot, was kidnapped.
His mother has issued a desperate offer of $20,000 and a complete collection of Star Trek memorabilia to the kidnappers to keep him. "I just want my basement back", said the distraught woman.
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman the visionary vs Linus the engineer.
Aaaah, what a deathmatch that would be...
Boring, I think: Stallman drones on for three hours about a world of fluffy bunnies, giving Torvalds time to build a 30 foot tall mecha which stomps his adversary into paste in about half a second.
What would be really useful is a solar powered blimp to replace satellites.
There's Billions waiting for something like that.
They're already advertising.
And no civilized person can stand a place with too many Brazilians.
Very true; the mere sight of a couple of Brazilians will often destroy any pretense of civilisation.
Oh, you meant citizens of Brazil...
if my favorite sites were 2 girls 1 cup
I'm disgusted!! Don't they know the difference between a cup and a tumbler?!?
Yeah, but that doesn't give us a cue to commence the recital of Monty Python routines.
Oh yes it does, but nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
its a liberal site where the basement dwellers can all high five each other and feel good about their incomplete lives.
And staying here to complain about it makes your life complete?
Glad to hear that no one was hurt in the end.
Cue prison rape jokes in 5...4...3...
If this takes off, I can see companies making stuff like pseudo-cows and pseudo-chickens that are cheaper to breed in the long term.
I suspect we're there already: if a McNugget isn't pseudo-chicken, what exactly is it?
Strangely, eating artificial plants wouldn't bother me as much as artificial animals.
Blurring the line would be interesting. I'm looking forward to growing a steak vine.
If it's an unknown network, how does anyone use it?
Unknowingly.
If you're not already wearing asbestos underwear while reading /., you're not doing it right.
if my dell explodes on a plane, is that a suicide bombing?
It is for the laptop.
The point is there's enough demand that colours other than black are available, so it is clearly a matter of taste.
And you're still ignoring the topic of the article, which nullifies the point of the original joke (Wizard of Oz reference: not black). Just let it go, or I'll come round and give you a good flogging.
How it will end?
Fascinating: a post that is right, yet oh so wrong ;)
That's disgusting, sordid, perverse, and when can I buy tickets?
That is only your opinion apparently.
And after that, all I can say is I'm glad I didn't make a joke about munchkin porn...
No, I think only a small sample will do.
Gives a new meaning to "stool pigeon", doesn't it?
Who gives a shit?
Determining that is number two on the list.
"Dorothy as some bondage queen isn't something I want to do," Olson told Fleming.
He can speak for himself. Red thigh-high stiletto boots work magic for me!
just so you can see a zit on a gnat's butt.
See how educational HD DVDs are? I bet before you didn't know gnats got zits, or even what their butts looked like.
But I can see an up side: cellulite shows up much more clearly in HD, so if we're lucky music will go back to being about music rather than who looks impossibly good in music videos. Then again, if we're really unlucky cellulite will become fashionable instead...
What, you needed more evidence that your (potential) boss is an idiot?
It's possible to make a bus jump a gap like in "Speed" though it takes a ramp and explosives -- put a ramp and explosives into the plot and it becomes plausible.
;)
The ramp is a possibility, but then you'd have to answer the more obvious question "what idiotic public works department would waste money building a ramp at the end of an uncompleted overpass and why?" (not a problem at ground level, where a pile of earth or gravel makes some sense, but then you don't have a gap to jump). Primed explosives have the same problem (who does blasting on a raised overpass?), but adds the question of whether the blast would lift such a heavy vehicle without setting off the bomb on board or causing other major damage; armoured vehicles have enough difficulty surviving that kind of thing and I doubt a typical bus would fare any better, so that isn't even remotely plausible.
If they used a crane to carry it over the break, then put the crane in the plot.
High capacity cranes pivot from a central point*: if the tangental velocity of the crane's arm is slower than the bus it would have to engage and lift instantly (not possible), otherwise either it would slow the bus down (kaboom), its winch gear would be torn out. And that's assuming it doesn't topple, and there's some kind of crane that can be guided accurately and quickly enough to grab the bus at its centre of gravity (it has to be wheels-down when it lands, remember), and have the necessary lift capacity in the grab mechanism (not possible with electromagnets), and have a fast enough grab mechanism (ruling out a hydraulic claw) and will keep the bus aligned with the direction of movement (not possible with cables), and be available at short notice...well, you get the point: again, you're replacing one physical impossibility with a whole host of physical impossibilities that underworked nerds** will criticise instead.
You can see why script writers*** go for the lesser evil; at least it's over quickly.
It's not like there's some standard of historical accuracy to worry about.
Which is worse: a story that occasionally ignores physics or one that has no logical consistency whatsoever? The target demographic for action films is clearly more sensitive to inexplicable plot developments than inaccurate physics (if they could handle inexplicable plots they'd be watching something by Bergman instead).
Of course, if they had a crane that could catch and lift a bus going 50 mph, there may not have been a movie.
So observing correct physics wouldn't be all bad
*I won't go into the exact mathematics of levers, counterweights and inertia, but suffice to say the greater lifting capacity and arm length of a crane, the slower it moves. And cranes don't absorb transverse forces at all well.
**I'm including myself here.
***Sorry, I meant typewriter-wielding monkeys.
Because the same computing power used to render can also be used to do the physics properly -- but it generally isn't.
Of course not. Movies have had real cars jumping over real gaps for years, and physics dictates that there's a limit to what you can achieve with that technique; it's pretty much been done. So the options are (1) limit yourself to what is physically possible regardless of whether you're using CGI or not and reuse old stunts, or (2) admit the whole thing is fantasy and go nuts. The studios have gone with option 2, because it's more reliably profitable than option 1, which relies more on talented acting and decent writing to carry a film (you see the problem there).
Considering the action genre relies on each release being more spectacular and improbable than the last, it would have died long ago if not for CGI. Whether that would be a good thing is a matter of opinion, though I'd point out that the crud is often a test-bed for the techniques that end up being used tastefully.
Another irony is that some movies that look cartoonish (Pixar films, for example) have more reasonable physics than movies that are meant to integrate the computer-generated effects seamlessly.
Not really true. If you refer to Cinefex you'll find all sorts of cheats and tweaks that defy real physics, and these are done because adhering to strict physics often looks too mechanical (it's not uncommon to have different values for gravity and wind resistance in different scenes, for example). It only looks more realistic because it's stylistically self-consistent and there's no real-world physics for comparison; nothing enters the uncanny valley, so errors are less obvious.
Good sig, BTW.
Gur vaqrfgehpgnoyr nfvna tvey trgf uvg ol n gehpx naq fgvyy svtugf yvxr abguvat unccrarq. [etcetera]
Yep, that's the average undersanding of physics. If only we could port that FF plugin to wetware...
A local teenager, who spent most of his time in the basement reading Slashdot, was kidnapped.
His mother has issued a desperate offer of $20,000 and a complete collection of Star Trek memorabilia to the kidnappers to keep him. "I just want my basement back", said the distraught woman.