The Atari logo is also in Blade runner.
Maybe Ridley Scott should get Lucas to go in and replace it with an sony logo.
Interestingly enough, most of the companies that were featured in the futuristic world of Blade Runner have since gone bankrupt. So many, in fact, that this observation has been dubbed The Blade Runner Curse
GMD> As far as I'm concerned, CGI has its place. And it's not for recreating living creatures.
Wormwood> Even if such creatures are extinct or never existed in the first place?
Yes, I mean anything that is alive in the movie.
I have to disagree that the arena beasts in Ep. II seemed unreal; the cat-like creature seem rather convincing to me.
You're welcome to your opinion. Actually, I was really referring to the "bronco riding" scenes. That's what really stood out for me.
Also, understand that CG is only the most recent "nonliving" technology to do FX. King Kong, et al, were stop motion, and I found them more convincing than Godzilla, which was a man in a costume.
Oh come on. Godzilla was made by Japanese studios on a shoestring budget. And although those movies have been exported all over the world, they are really intended for a Japanese audience. Japanese just don't care about super-realism. Just look at that kaboki (sp?) theatre! Guys in dark clothing move life-sized wooden puppets around in a play. That's not even remotely realistic and the Japanese don't care. That's not important to them.
You wanna see what Hollywood can do with guys in suits, watch Aliens (the 2nd one) tonight. You can't tell me those beasties don't scare the poo oughta your booty!
In time, we will learn enough about out physiology to model our actions convincingly up close
You may well be correct. But until that day I just don't want to see any more products from Hollywood's "learning curve".
Again, this is just my opinion. If you like CGI creatures, your opinion is equally valid.
I've always felt that actors, even if clad in rubber suits like in Predator, look far better and more realistic than CG graphics. I also feel that CG should just be for the background, or other special effects, never for characters.
I couldn't agree more. I'm really baffled at the constant attempts to shove CGI down our throats. You really can't help but cringe in those scenes in AOTC when Anakin is riding some beast (both in the field and in the gladiator arena). I mean, it's so obviously a CGI effect. It just doesn't move right. And this is LucasFilm -- CGI doesn't get better than that.
With all the time and money they've spent on trying to improve CGI motion, I would think it could be better spent on developing more realistic and movable costumes. I'm not trolling -- I really want to know if anyone thinks that CGI living creatures have realistic motion.
As far as I'm concerned, CGI has its place. And it's not for recreating living creatures.
So much for the founding fathers with their Christian beliefs.
The particular religous beliefs of the founding fathers is irrelevant and they realized this. That is what is so amazing about the country they helped build. Example Numero Uno would have to be Thomas Paine who, as a Deist, wrote The Age Of Reason -- one of the classic books on free thinking.
His book about steganography, Disappearing Cryptography , may be a few months late.
You mean there's a whole friggin' science devoted to the science of studying stegosauruses now? Screw being an general palenotolgoist -- when I grow up I wanna be one of those high-priced specialists!
My friend has a Deanna Troy action figure on which the red paint on the chest has been rubbed off.
Heh. I remember rummaging through my old Star Wars toys a few years ago. I had to chuckle when I noticed my Princess Leia figure had indelable smudges all over her chest from my years of fondling her as a child. Hey, let's face it. As a wee kiddie I didn't have access to Playboy. And I had no idea what the Internet was. So groping my precious Leia figure was the only sexual release a poor young GMD could get.
Gees I dunno why I'm telling you all this. I hope I don't get billed from psych counsuling from CmdrTaco....
This article it typical alarmist FUD. No mention of how much money is saved each year by coders.
This world of perfection exists only in the minds of the pencil pushers at NIST.
(emphasis mine)
So are you saying the article is shit or the 307 page NIST report is shit? Or both? Yeah, there's no mention of how much money is saved by coders. That's because that wasn't part of the NIST study. If you had bothered to even skim the NIST report (the PDF is just a click away) you would have read on page ES-2:
The objective of this study is to investigate the economic impact of an inadequate infrastructure for software testing in the U.S.
Note that the objective of the NIST report is not "Software: benefit or liability".
In the real world, coders sometimes make mistakes because they are...human.
Just because software developers are human doesn't mean that they should be blind or ignorant of the very real costs borne by society because good testing procedures have not been instituted at most companies. NIST isn't saying "coders are crap". They're simply pointing out that software bugs are a serious problem. And then they back it up with 300+ pages of analysis.
I skimmed through the article and I didn't see any place where it said how much it would cost to actually produce bug free code. I'm betting much more than the $60 billion arbitrary figure they came up with.
(emphasis mine)
I'm sorry but I have to take exception to your tone. Simply skimming a news blurb does not give you the right to trash the NIST study or label their conclusions as "arbitrary." Until you've made an effort to digest whatever analysis is contained in the 309 page study (and there is a link to the PDF file so don't say you can't do so) you really shouldn't be shitting on someone else's work. I don't think I'm being harsh by taking you to task over this. That news bulletin is an advertisement of sorts for the study. You can't possibly expect to get a full understanding of their analysis from a news blurb, for chrissake.
I'm sorry but one of my pet peeves is armchair philosophers who seem to think that they can best the experts without actually doing any work.
I find it refreshing that artist such as Spielberg are able to shine some sort of light on these issues, engcouraging debate, and hopefully taking some of the wind out of the sails of those that do not see the danger and bad side effects of their proposed solutions.
I'm not sure I would refer to Spielberg's comments as shining "some light" because anyone who reads slashdot regularly is already well familiar with these issues and he's certainly not bringing anything new or profound to the table. However, I do agree with your point (at least what I believe your point is) and that is that we need public figured like Spielberg to start fleshing out these ideas for others to think about. Let's face it, the most beautifully written post here on slashdot is going to have neglible impact on whether our privacy is taken away or not. But someone like Spielberg has the entire Western world listening to his comments. What he says may seem pretty obvious to us but will actually seem profound to the millions of people who see nothing wrong with public face-scanners and all the other surveillance devices either currently in operation or on the drawing board.
I guess my post is a long-winded way of saying I agree with you that we need people like Spielberg to publicize the privacy issues for the benefit of those who don't think unless a celebrity gives them something to chew on.
Yeah, that would be wild. But what would be even crazier is if it wasn't an asteroid but in fact a particle-beam weapon fired from a spaceship in American airspace to strike Russia, triggering a nuclear war all in an attempt to prevent Lord John Worphin and the red lectroids from crossing over into the 8th dimension!
And the largest thermonuclear device ever exploded in the atmosphere period was done by the Soviets in 1961 [hiroshima.jp] and was ~50MT.
What's even spookier is that the Russians detonated this Largest Nuclear Weapon Ever while there was a no-nuke-test treaty in place with the US! Needless to say, the Russian's action was a dramatic end to the treaty. Here's one example in history where a treaty meant absolutely nothing.
Did they ever say how those bugs were shooting the asteroids?
I have never read the book -- I only saw the movie. I, too, was a bit baffled at this. However, I remember reading a very interesting letter to the editor in the LA Times when this movie came out. His claim was that all the critics who were blasting the movie as a violent fantasy were missing the "real point" of the movie -- that it was an anti-war film. In the movie, there never was any explanation for how these bugs were supposedly launching and steering these asteroids towards Earth. In fact when you first see Klendathu you see the bugs possess no technology. Yet, all that was needed was for the leaders to claim the bugs did it and everyone was willing to go to war with them. The author of this letter was pointing out that this same kind of mindless acceptance of a convienient scapegoat was the same stuff that the director (a German) saw first-hand growing up in Nazi Germany. To further hammer the point home, director Verhoeven peppered the film full of rediculous propaganda commericals.
That letter made me look at that movie from a different perspective. It is chilling that in the film, no one questions whether the bugs were even capable, let alone willing, to commit such an act of aggression against Earth. I'm sure we can all think of examples here on Earth of peoples being too eager to go to war without a good reason.
Energy would be collect on the other side of the moon, and beamed back to earth via satellites. Of coarse, this will never happen because of the greedy oil companies.
Interesting idea but these people are meeting to discuss human settlement on the moon. I'm sure the people living there are going to have some plans for that power as well. Remember that America started off as a colony of Britian and way for England to reap new natural resources. Finally, the Americans realized that they could be self-sufficient so they said "Screw you!" to the Brits. These moon dwellers may start off by harvesting sunlight for the Earth-bound but who's to say that they won't decide that they have better uses for the power on the moon? Yeah, yeah, I know that supposedly there's plenty of power -- more than the moon would use by itself. But you'd be surprised how necessity expands to fill supply. Pretty soon the moon-folk will need to build their own Las Vegas with so many lights you'll be able to see it clearly from Earth.
I would say that "greedy oil companies" is just one possible fly in the ointment to this plan
I could--as anyone reading./ probably could--isolate the bug in ten minutes given the source.
The joke's on you, MIT.
Y'know, if you're going to laugh about a boo-boo committed by one of the greatest science institutions in the world here on slashdot, perhaps you should at least make sure your post doesn't have boo-boos, like getting the order of the "dot" and "slash" mixed up (dotslash?)
Umm, if I remember properly isn't this an 'urban legend' like the jet powered chevy impala?
Actually the story of the jet powered chevy isn't an urban legend -- it really happened. Fox had a clip of the attempt on one of their "World's..." shows. Some moron simply fastened two makeshift wings onto the sides of his car and equipped it with a jet engine. He was planning to jump over a river using a ramp. Well, when the car left the edge of the ramp and began the "jump" the wings fell off immediately and the car starting doing an end-over-end flip.
I remember laughing my ass off at that clip. It just looked so stupid. You could tell the moron had no clue what he was doing. Even when the announcer said the guy died in the attempt, it was still impossible to stop laughing. I guess maybe I'm a sicko or something...
I wish I could say that this was new, revolutionary technology. But I can't. I first heard about it close to 30 years ago in Scientific American.
You're right but for me the thrill is not that it's finally being built but that the Americans managed to catch up. For those unfamiliar with the maglev story, here it is:
Decades ago MIT came up with the idea for the maglev train and even went so far as building a scale-model prototype (there is actually a black-and-white film clip somewhere of it in action). However, funding dried up and America decided not to pursue the technology. Hey, everyone loves their car, right? So why bother building an expensive mass-transit system. Of course, the answer is because not every country in the world is as obsessed with cars as America. Germany and Japan both realized the potential market for this and began development. And in contrast to the Americans, researchers in those countries actually had the full support of the government. Japan and Germany have no qualms about using government money to help subsidize non-military commerical technology. By the time America started to realize that maglev could be a great new market, they were way behind.
But somehow, and I don't honestly know how, they have been able to catch up to the frontrunners. Everyone loves an underdog, right? Even if USA isn't the first one to field a system, I'm still impressed they were able to realize their mistake and come from behind.
It used to be that someone with a B.S. degree had a good chance of deciding whether or not a patent should be granted. If a doctorate is needed, can the USPTO sustain that? There is no way they could hire enough good people for every field. The people they would need are the people who should be out inventing.
I'm sorry but I disagree with your last sentence. I think the patent office needs some intelligent people with critical minds and willingness to rapidly come up to speed on some new technology that they aren't familiar with. I would imagine that being an inventor requires a whole different set of intellectual skills. They have to be sharp also but rather than being critical, they need to be overly creative and imaginative. Whereas a patent reviewer should be good at identifying what's been done before, the inventor has to create something that hasn't been done before. I don't think that stocking the patent office full of excellent reviewers would hurt our nations ability to innovate.
Slashdot Mirror
The Atari logo is also in Blade runner. Maybe Ridley Scott should get Lucas to go in and replace it with an sony logo.
Interestingly enough, most of the companies that were featured in the futuristic world of Blade Runner have since gone bankrupt. So many, in fact, that this observation has been dubbed The Blade Runner Curse
GMD
Just look at that kaboki (sp?) theatre! Guys in dark clothing move life-sized wooden puppets around in a play.
Okay, my bad. That's not kabuki theatre. Does anyone know what the hell the name of these Japanese puppet plays is?
GMD
GMD> As far as I'm concerned, CGI has its place. And it's not for recreating living creatures.
Wormwood> Even if such creatures are extinct or never existed in the first place?
Yes, I mean anything that is alive in the movie.
I have to disagree that the arena beasts in Ep. II seemed unreal; the cat-like creature seem rather convincing to me.
You're welcome to your opinion. Actually, I was really referring to the "bronco riding" scenes. That's what really stood out for me.
Also, understand that CG is only the most recent "nonliving" technology to do FX. King Kong, et al, were stop motion, and I found them more convincing than Godzilla, which was a man in a costume.
Oh come on. Godzilla was made by Japanese studios on a shoestring budget. And although those movies have been exported all over the world, they are really intended for a Japanese audience. Japanese just don't care about super-realism. Just look at that kaboki (sp?) theatre! Guys in dark clothing move life-sized wooden puppets around in a play. That's not even remotely realistic and the Japanese don't care. That's not important to them.
You wanna see what Hollywood can do with guys in suits, watch Aliens (the 2nd one) tonight. You can't tell me those beasties don't scare the poo oughta your booty!
In time, we will learn enough about out physiology to model our actions convincingly up close
You may well be correct. But until that day I just don't want to see any more products from Hollywood's "learning curve".
Again, this is just my opinion. If you like CGI creatures, your opinion is equally valid.
GMD
I've always felt that actors, even if clad in rubber suits like in Predator, look far better and more realistic than CG graphics. I also feel that CG should just be for the background, or other special effects, never for characters.
I couldn't agree more. I'm really baffled at the constant attempts to shove CGI down our throats. You really can't help but cringe in those scenes in AOTC when Anakin is riding some beast (both in the field and in the gladiator arena). I mean, it's so obviously a CGI effect. It just doesn't move right. And this is LucasFilm -- CGI doesn't get better than that.
With all the time and money they've spent on trying to improve CGI motion, I would think it could be better spent on developing more realistic and movable costumes. I'm not trolling -- I really want to know if anyone thinks that CGI living creatures have realistic motion.
As far as I'm concerned, CGI has its place. And it's not for recreating living creatures.
GMD
This is just another futile attempt from AOL to grab on to the and I quote "millions and millions" of people who got wise to their crap.
That's "billions and billions" and if you're going to quote Carl Sagan like that, you should at least give him credit!
oh, wait a minute... :)
GMD
So much for the founding fathers with their Christian beliefs.
The particular religous beliefs of the founding fathers is irrelevant and they realized this. That is what is so amazing about the country they helped build. Example Numero Uno would have to be Thomas Paine who, as a Deist, wrote The Age Of Reason -- one of the classic books on free thinking.
GMD
His book about steganography, Disappearing Cryptography , may be a few months late.
You mean there's a whole friggin' science devoted to the science of studying stegosauruses now? Screw being an general palenotolgoist -- when I grow up I wanna be one of those high-priced specialists!
GMD
My friend has a Deanna Troy action figure on which the red paint on the chest has been rubbed off.
Heh. I remember rummaging through my old Star Wars toys a few years ago. I had to chuckle when I noticed my Princess Leia figure had indelable smudges all over her chest from my years of fondling her as a child. Hey, let's face it. As a wee kiddie I didn't have access to Playboy. And I had no idea what the Internet was. So groping my precious Leia figure was the only sexual release a poor young GMD could get.
Gees I dunno why I'm telling you all this. I hope I don't get billed from psych counsuling from CmdrTaco....
GMD
I typed in a computer query and 5th on the result list was someone from Entertainment Tonight.
You too? I thought it was just me:
query: whois failure
result: John Tesh
GMD
This article it typical alarmist FUD. No mention of how much money is saved each year by coders.
This world of perfection exists only in the minds of the pencil pushers at NIST.
(emphasis mine)
So are you saying the article is shit or the 307 page NIST report is shit? Or both? Yeah, there's no mention of how much money is saved by coders. That's because that wasn't part of the NIST study. If you had bothered to even skim the NIST report (the PDF is just a click away) you would have read on page ES-2:
The objective of this study is to investigate the economic impact of an inadequate infrastructure for software testing in the U.S.
Note that the objective of the NIST report is not "Software: benefit or liability".
In the real world, coders sometimes make mistakes because they are...human.
Just because software developers are human doesn't mean that they should be blind or ignorant of the very real costs borne by society because good testing procedures have not been instituted at most companies. NIST isn't saying "coders are crap". They're simply pointing out that software bugs are a serious problem. And then they back it up with 300+ pages of analysis.
GMD
I skimmed through the article and I didn't see any place where it said how much it would cost to actually produce bug free code. I'm betting much more than the $60 billion arbitrary figure they came up with.
(emphasis mine)
I'm sorry but I have to take exception to your tone. Simply skimming a news blurb does not give you the right to trash the NIST study or label their conclusions as "arbitrary." Until you've made an effort to digest whatever analysis is contained in the 309 page study (and there is a link to the PDF file so don't say you can't do so) you really shouldn't be shitting on someone else's work. I don't think I'm being harsh by taking you to task over this. That news bulletin is an advertisement of sorts for the study. You can't possibly expect to get a full understanding of their analysis from a news blurb, for chrissake.
I'm sorry but one of my pet peeves is armchair philosophers who seem to think that they can best the experts without actually doing any work.
GMD
Race Car Aerodynamics: Designing for Speed
by Joseph Katz
Don't forget:
21st Century Automotive Engineering: CAE In The Post-9/11, Post-Columbine Eraby John Katz
There goes some karma for sure... :)
GMD
I find it refreshing that artist such as Spielberg are able to shine some sort of light on these issues, engcouraging debate, and hopefully taking some of the wind out of the sails of those that do not see the danger and bad side effects of their proposed solutions.
I'm not sure I would refer to Spielberg's comments as shining "some light" because anyone who reads slashdot regularly is already well familiar with these issues and he's certainly not bringing anything new or profound to the table. However, I do agree with your point (at least what I believe your point is) and that is that we need public figured like Spielberg to start fleshing out these ideas for others to think about. Let's face it, the most beautifully written post here on slashdot is going to have neglible impact on whether our privacy is taken away or not. But someone like Spielberg has the entire Western world listening to his comments. What he says may seem pretty obvious to us but will actually seem profound to the millions of people who see nothing wrong with public face-scanners and all the other surveillance devices either currently in operation or on the drawing board.
I guess my post is a long-winded way of saying I agree with you that we need people like Spielberg to publicize the privacy issues for the benefit of those who don't think unless a celebrity gives them something to chew on.
GMD
Thanks to everyone who pointed out my error. There was no official treaty in place at the time. I had my facts wrong.
GMD
Yeah, that would be wild. But what would be even crazier is if it wasn't an asteroid but in fact a particle-beam weapon fired from a spaceship in American airspace to strike Russia, triggering a nuclear war all in an attempt to prevent Lord John Worphin and the red lectroids from crossing over into the 8th dimension!
Now that would REALLY suck!
GMD
And the largest thermonuclear device ever exploded in the atmosphere period was done by the Soviets in 1961 [hiroshima.jp] and was ~50MT.
What's even spookier is that the Russians detonated this Largest Nuclear Weapon Ever while there was a no-nuke-test treaty in place with the US! Needless to say, the Russian's action was a dramatic end to the treaty. Here's one example in history where a treaty meant absolutely nothing.
GMD
Did they ever say how those bugs were shooting the asteroids?
I have never read the book -- I only saw the movie. I, too, was a bit baffled at this. However, I remember reading a very interesting letter to the editor in the LA Times when this movie came out. His claim was that all the critics who were blasting the movie as a violent fantasy were missing the "real point" of the movie -- that it was an anti-war film. In the movie, there never was any explanation for how these bugs were supposedly launching and steering these asteroids towards Earth. In fact when you first see Klendathu you see the bugs possess no technology. Yet, all that was needed was for the leaders to claim the bugs did it and everyone was willing to go to war with them. The author of this letter was pointing out that this same kind of mindless acceptance of a convienient scapegoat was the same stuff that the director (a German) saw first-hand growing up in Nazi Germany. To further hammer the point home, director Verhoeven peppered the film full of rediculous propaganda commericals.
That letter made me look at that movie from a different perspective. It is chilling that in the film, no one questions whether the bugs were even capable, let alone willing, to commit such an act of aggression against Earth. I'm sure we can all think of examples here on Earth of peoples being too eager to go to war without a good reason.
GMD
Every time we hear about one of these it's closer than the last time.
Is somebody aiming these things?
Analysis shows that they are originating from a far-away planet. An ugly planet. A bug planet.
GMD
Energy would be collect on the other side of the moon, and beamed back to earth via satellites. Of coarse, this will never happen because of the greedy oil companies.
Interesting idea but these people are meeting to discuss human settlement on the moon. I'm sure the people living there are going to have some plans for that power as well. Remember that America started off as a colony of Britian and way for England to reap new natural resources. Finally, the Americans realized that they could be self-sufficient so they said "Screw you!" to the Brits. These moon dwellers may start off by harvesting sunlight for the Earth-bound but who's to say that they won't decide that they have better uses for the power on the moon? Yeah, yeah, I know that supposedly there's plenty of power -- more than the moon would use by itself. But you'd be surprised how necessity expands to fill supply. Pretty soon the moon-folk will need to build their own Las Vegas with so many lights you'll be able to see it clearly from Earth.
I would say that "greedy oil companies" is just one possible fly in the ointment to this plan
GMD
Don't forget:
11) Never miss a telemarketing phone call again (shudder!)
GMD
I could--as anyone reading ./ probably could--isolate the bug in ten minutes given the source.
The joke's on you, MIT.
Y'know, if you're going to laugh about a boo-boo committed by one of the greatest science institutions in the world here on slashdot, perhaps you should at least make sure your post doesn't have boo-boos, like getting the order of the "dot" and "slash" mixed up (dotslash?)
GMD
Umm, if I remember properly isn't this an 'urban legend' like the jet powered chevy impala?
Actually the story of the jet powered chevy isn't an urban legend -- it really happened. Fox had a clip of the attempt on one of their "World's ..." shows. Some moron simply fastened two makeshift wings onto the sides of his car and equipped it with a jet engine. He was planning to jump over a river using a ramp. Well, when the car left the edge of the ramp and began the "jump" the wings fell off immediately and the car starting doing an end-over-end flip.
I remember laughing my ass off at that clip. It just looked so stupid. You could tell the moron had no clue what he was doing. Even when the announcer said the guy died in the attempt, it was still impossible to stop laughing. I guess maybe I'm a sicko or something...
GMD
I wanna see how this plays out and I hope someone finds an angry grandmother type who doesn't take any guff to be the posterchild for this.
Oh PLEASE let it be that "Where's the beef?" lady!!!
GMD
I wish I could say that this was new, revolutionary technology. But I can't. I first heard about it close to 30 years ago in Scientific American.
You're right but for me the thrill is not that it's finally being built but that the Americans managed to catch up. For those unfamiliar with the maglev story, here it is:
Decades ago MIT came up with the idea for the maglev train and even went so far as building a scale-model prototype (there is actually a black-and-white film clip somewhere of it in action). However, funding dried up and America decided not to pursue the technology. Hey, everyone loves their car, right? So why bother building an expensive mass-transit system. Of course, the answer is because not every country in the world is as obsessed with cars as America. Germany and Japan both realized the potential market for this and began development. And in contrast to the Americans, researchers in those countries actually had the full support of the government. Japan and Germany have no qualms about using government money to help subsidize non-military commerical technology. By the time America started to realize that maglev could be a great new market, they were way behind.
But somehow, and I don't honestly know how, they have been able to catch up to the frontrunners. Everyone loves an underdog, right? Even if USA isn't the first one to field a system, I'm still impressed they were able to realize their mistake and come from behind.
GMD
It used to be that someone with a B.S. degree had a good chance of deciding whether or not a patent should be granted. If a doctorate is needed, can the USPTO sustain that? There is no way they could hire enough good people for every field. The people they would need are the people who should be out inventing.
I'm sorry but I disagree with your last sentence. I think the patent office needs some intelligent people with critical minds and willingness to rapidly come up to speed on some new technology that they aren't familiar with. I would imagine that being an inventor requires a whole different set of intellectual skills. They have to be sharp also but rather than being critical, they need to be overly creative and imaginative. Whereas a patent reviewer should be good at identifying what's been done before, the inventor has to create something that hasn't been done before. I don't think that stocking the patent office full of excellent reviewers would hurt our nations ability to innovate.
GMD