You don't have to watch Fox, I don't have to watch CNN or FSTV
This is certainly correct. However, a choice between two differently tainted news publications is hardly the ideal. I hope people begin to recognize that news sources need not be tainted at all. A scenario that forces people to pick which flavor of bias they prefer is both foolish and dangerous; just as it is foolish and dangerous to vote for the "lesser of two evils" during elections.
I think that there is a ballance in the media today that is unparralleled in the course of history.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Honestly it doesn't even matter. Regardless of how our press stands in comparison to past ones, ours is tainted enough to prove fatal. Our press actively misleads the public; I have even heard polls indicating upwards of 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Here is a much more conservative poll (just did a quick google search - gotta run soon) which indicates 45% of Americans believe Saddam was personally responsible (versus 40% who are undecided). Innocent people (American and Iraqi alike) have died as a result of this ignorance.
Let's take a look at what this would turn into, a parrot for whatever party is in control. On the off chance Nader gets elected in 2004, he would try to bend the rules of this (USA)BC to spout his views to the masses, just the same as Bush or Clinton would.
Not necessarily, because the USA-BC (or whatever it would be called) would not be beholden to the current administration. Ideally, it would not be beholden to anyone at all, actually. It needn't worry if CNN or Foxnews is kicking it in the pants ratings-wise. Its only concern would be maintaining a strict adherence to the principles of good reporting - just the facts; cite your sources; do not use loaded words (like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter"); do not censor images; and for [deity]'s sake - absolutely NO SPECIAL EFFECTS! Do you think the BBC is a parrot for Tony Blair? Take a look at an article on the front page about him... here is a link... Do you feel this article is skewed in favor or against him? Seems pretty impartial to me. It containts quotes from people attacking him; and his subsequent replies. This is what news sources are supposed to do - and nothing more.
The BBC is a government subsidized quasi-monopoly. Using the BBC as a good example when it comes to media consolidation is abolsutely stupid, since they stand for what we are NOT wanting to happen to US media.
I disagree completely. I would love for there to be a public-funded, comprehensive American news source along the same lines of the BBC. Ralph Nader agrees and hence, he got my vote. One thing people need to remember is that the free-market is not an inherently Good Thing. It is simply a tool, and can be a very good or a very bad thing depending on how it is applied, and on the nature of the market in question. Soda pop, cameras, backpacks -- these are all markets where the free-market should rule. Markets where safety and environmental impact is prominent (such as the auto and airline industries) should be left to the free market, but tempered by the government through regulation. And with news media, there should be at least one source that is entirely removed from markets altogether. It should have no advertising and be publically funded.
I gave up watching TV and listening to the radio long ago. There's simply nothing good on anymore, and the radio has been crap for years. I'm sure many of you feel the same way.
I feel exactly the same way. However, it still matters, whether you or I choose to watch it or not. More power in the hands of fewer people will affect you regardless. They will have more power to control elections; more power to sell wars; more power to do anything they want. The crappy music that gets pumped over the airwaves is the *least* of my worries when talking about media deregulation.
I think a large part of the unreality of CG is due to the fact that they are showing things that you know to be absolutely impossible (like Jabba the Hutt). Your brain just can't get over that fact, so it will never look as real as something you can tell yourself is a real, physical object. However, when I saw the first footage from Final Flight of the Osiris, I didn't yet know that it was CG, and it took some convincing for a friend to get me to realize it wasn't live-action.
I disagree, because I can buy into Jabba the Hut just fine in Return of the Jedi. Its not that I take one look at a CG Jabba and say to myself "BS - thats impossible!" -- I just look at him and get a sense that there is nothing sitting there. When Leia falls into Jabba in RotJ, I can see how he moves and get a feel for his body texture, etc. Its not that I demand realistic, found-in-a-zoo animals or human CG characters -- I just find certain effects believable and others not. More often than not I feel CG effects are truly unbelievable.
I think my problem with CG is slightly different than what you are talking about. First off, I could tell right away that FFotO was CG. That being said, the CG in FFotO does not bother me in the slightest. The reason why I can "buy into" the CG of FFotO is that the entire FFotO world is rendered in the same way. I am, therefore, able to buy into that world - just as I can easily (and gladly) buy into a world like Toy Story or Spirited Away. Those films are not trying to trick me into thinking anything is "real" - they are simply taking me to new worlds altogether, and giving me new definitions of what is "real." Im not sure if that came out right - it is somewhat difficult for me to explain my viewpoint.
The real problem with the believability of CG is not technological - it is that it is weilded with no talent and discretion by modern, crappy filmmakers. Lucas is the pinnacle, shining example of how not to use CG.
I don't really get your premise, why is a puppet any more "real" than CG?
Because, when another character reaches out and touches the puppet or model, you believe he/she is actually touching something... With CG, it is usually so obvious that the CG character isn't really there. The other actor (who is in reality is looking at a blue screen) stares intently at where the eyes are supposed to be, but you can just tell he isn't seeing the creature standing there. You can tell because the character does not react to the subtle nuance of the CG character. When the CG creature wags a huge, spiked tail, or shifts its weight suddenly, the other actor does not react to these movements. I dont know how else to explain it - it is obvious the creature is simply not there. Chewie from Star Wars was much more believable than even Gollum... The difference is in the minute, subtle nuance found in their interactions.
CG has its place and can definitely add to the realism of a picture (films like Jurassic park used CG very effectively), but in most cases it detracts IMHO.
Animations like Roger Rabbit are just in a different category altogether. The creators of Roger Rabbit were not trying to convice me that Roger is a character that I would believe in real life. He was, obviously, a cartoon, and it works fine.
Just face it. With CG, Hollywood just isnt cool anymore.
Not cool? Take a look at this... is it getting hot in here, or is it just them? *puts on sunglasses - makes dual "gun gesture" with both hands - winks*
I don't see this result as anything particularly surprising.
You may not be surprised, but remember that we are talking about video games here. Think about what the average parent or teacher thinks about the hobby of playing video games. Remember that bashing video games as a waste of time and a cause of anti-social disorders and/or depression is a frequent past-time of the press. Remember that the fact that the Columbine kids played Doom was often mentioned when talking about the murders.
When a study comes out that proves that there are real-world, physical benefits to playing GTA3 -- this would definitely surprise a lot of people. Gamers often already know about these benefits. I, for instance, have noticed that my positioning and directional skills seem to be better than most peoples. For example, if we are driving in an area which we are not familiar with - making a lot of turns, etc - I notice that I am able to keep my bearings on the cardinal directions (i.e. which way is north, etc) much better than most people. These skills have been tuned playing first-person shooters for many years, as in those games it is a strategic advantage to "make sense" of the map as a whole, despite the fact that they can only see a little bit of it at any given time. Whenever you make a turn, you mentally map your position and bearings on a top-down mental image of sorts. At any given time, you know the direction of all the previous rooms you have been to - even on a large map. Not everyone can do this well without practice.
Seriously though, it is sad that so many people do not understand that, above all other things, the media should strive to be unbiased. I actually saw a big picture advertisement on Foxnews.com for one of their anchorman's books that had the subcaption "winning the war of liberty of liberalism." Now, regardless of whether you are a liberal or not, this *should* make you sick to your stomach. Sadly, I know most people do not understand why this is a Bad Thing. The other news networks may indeed have a liberal slant, but I have NEVER seen an ad for a book saying "winning the war against conservatives" on CNN.com. FoxNews has sunk to new lows (Geraldo aside), and is in a league of its own.
All the corporate American news sources are tainted, albeit less so than FoxNews, with this corruption. The CNN headline after the start of the war in Afghanistan "America Strikes Back" is a loaded headline. The headline is, in effect, telling you two things. First, that we were not at war before this most recent invasion, and second, that we are attacking in self-defense. Both points are debatable, but CNN felt it necessary to make up the viewers minds for them. Its subtle, but its extremely important that people begin to pick up on these things. Real news sources should stick to presenting facts, and facts alone.
If you want to check out better news sources, look into Reuters and BBC News.
Anybody who doesn't already know that almost all fast food is fattening and unhealthy is a moron. McDonalds is high in cholesterol/fat/calories/plutonium/whatever. They do not lie about it. They just don't highly publicize it. But the information is there if you look.
I agree. The book I referenced, however, goes much, much deeper than that. It gives you political, ethical, environmental, economic and social reasons to avoid fast food. There are many reasons to stop eating fast food beyond how utterly unhealthy it is. Read it and you will see what I'm talking about. This book should be required reading IMHO.
But aren't Splinter Cell and Raven Shield simply third party games that have licensed the Unreal engine? That is what confused me - I thought you made it sound as if they were seperate Unreal engines. If they are counted, then Half Life and Jedi Knight, etc, should be counted for ids side - thats all im saying.
Well whatever... I guess I dont see the distinction between ids engine evolution and unreals, other than epic seems to release them in smaller time increments. I am not an expert, but I would think ids engines do in fact have some relation to those that came before it and are therefore not "totally new," just as unreals are not.
Relax man, I liked Lord of the Rings, I assure you. Put down the pitchfork.;) It was a decent action movie.
My point was simply that this study was trying to determine why certain movies succeed and why others do not -- not determine what makes a quality movie. What makes a quality movie, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. You cant scientifically calculate what makes a film quality -- but you can determine which elements combine to make commercially successful, widely-loved films. Make sense?
And for the record, I am entitled to my opinion.. and ranking Fast and the Furious as the 114th best movie makes me cringe. That is all. Thank you.
Oh come on, if a movie isn't 40pc plot it is not worth watching.
I completely disagree. Different films/works can work for different reasons. Some can work entirely without plot, and instead rely simply on character development and/or other methods.
The Thin Red Line is one such example. No plot, very little character development -- just characters "reflecting" for more than two hours. It works, in its own way, regardless. Jaws is an even better example. The plot is simply "Shark terrorizes beach community" -- the power of the film comes from an intense atmosphere and mood - not plot.
To use another mainstream example, the film GhostBusters was at its best when it was unconcerned with plot - when it just followed these characters through their daily lives as they, of all things, trapped ghosts. The film did not get its energy from the unnecessary and predictable "save the world" plot tacked on.
The best Bret Easton Ellis books work similarly. "Less Than Zero" and "American Psycho" have minimal to not plot, yet are very good, fascinating books.
Did anyone else feel it was an insult to those with intelligence that plot took only an 8% grab?
Not really. Remember, this "study" (and I use the term loosely;) is measuring how to make a successful movie - not a quality one. Forget Lord of the Rings and look at Charlies Angels, Fast and Furious, etc. *shudder*
Id, on the other hand, likes to start "from scratch". Between Unreal I and UT2K3/Unreal 2/Splinter Cell/Raven Shield/all of the other Unreal-based games out today, Id's gone through Quake 2, Quake 3, and is gearing up for Doom 3.
Huh?
There have been many games based on the various Quake engines -- at least as many, if not more so, than on the Unreal engine. You name Splinter Cell and Raven Shield, and I can name Jedi Knight 2, Return to Castle Wolfenstein - even Half-Life as various games based on a Quake engine. The list goes on and on for both sides...
Re:As good of place as any
on
Prince of Pop-ups
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What is stopping Microsoft from putting out a version or patch of/to IE that has this feature?
I would imagine this is similar to TV manufacturers not including commercial-blocking features with their TV sets by default. Sure, you can buy equipment to do this, but you have to specifically take that course of action yourself. Commercials, while annoying, are healthy for the TV business, and TV manufacturers cannot destroy this industry without hurting themselves. The feature can exist, but it cannot be included by default.
Microsoft, as the de-facto standard of web browsers, needs to think carefully before swiping out entire features altogether. After all, "window.open" is technically part of the javascript spec, and there are some (though not many;) legitimate uses for popups on the web. Moronic IE users would probably never know why a particularly site was not working correctly because a popup was being blocked. I really think the blocking of popups should be something you specifically apply to your browser - yes, perhaps a patch would be sufficient - but I dont think it should be included by default.
* Or the Justice Department of how many had marijuana in their systems prior to dying or killing others in shootouts/robberies/whatever.
* Or how many spouses/partners killed their partners and/or themselves and had marijuana in their system
* Or how many boaters/jet skiers die each year during accidents and marijuana being in their systems
I'll venture a guess... "not many."
I am sorry to hear about your friend, but its silly to think they commited suicide because of marijuana. Most people who commit suicide do so for valid reasons (or, what they perceive to be valid reasons). Was he/she depressed? The "marijuana" could just have easily been "alocohol" or "Xanax" or nothing at all. I assure you, this person was thinking about suicide before lighting up that joint. Also, people have commited suicide from ODing on myriad perfectly legal substances. What's the solution - banning everything that can be an aid to suicide? Its, unfortunately, all very arbitrary - and easy to blame something like marijuana for the suicide when the real reasons behind it are much more scary and personal.
As for your other friend - again, I am sorry to hear about what happaned... Driving under the influence of drugs (legal and illegal alike) is ill-advised. Also, you are also not supposed to drive shortly after giving blood. *shrugs*
People, making the process of voting physically easier is not the solution to curing voter apathy. Politically apathetic citizens became that way because of one of two reasons:
1. they are genuinely not interested in politics, or they feel it does not affect them in any way
2. they feel there is no candidate worth voting for
In reality, these two reasons are caused by the same thing -- ignorance. Politics DOES affect you, and there ARE candidates worth voting for. Online voting may make the process easier, but it does nothing to cure the problems infecting the system itself.
Here is a quick checklist to see if you, or someone you know, is, in fact, Part of the Problem!!
1. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", you are part of the problem. You should find a candidate that you actually like, because they are out there (though, admittedly, they may not have a cute icon like an elephant or a donkey). At the very least, you should familiarize yourself with the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.
2. If you vote on a single, smoke-and-mirrors issue, you are part of the problem. E.g. soccer moms who vote Republican because they are "pro life" when Republicans have little interest in outlawing abortion. Its ok to feel strongly about a particular issue, but at least look into whether or not the people you are voting for will actually do something about it. More often than not, hot-button issues like abortion are simply split between the two major parties - Democrats are "pro choice" and Republicans are "pro life" - but abortion remains legal regardless of which is in office. Voting along these arbitrary, marketing-driven lines accomplishes nothing. Do not allow your vote to be "assumed" by a major party because you feel a certain way about an issue - make them show you something.
3. If you do not vote at all because you think there is no one worth voting for, then you are part of the problem. There are many different voices out there, and one is sure to align fairly closely with your own. Whenever possible, one should always vote for third parties because, if for no other reason, you can consider it a vote for more choices and an end to the lock of the two-party system (the first hurdle).
4. And lastly - register yourself as an independant! There is no reason for you to allow yourself to be assumed. They have to earn your vote - every time. The fact that people check themselves off as subscribing to a particular laundry list of stances on issues never ceases to amaze and disgust me. Why allow yourself to become part of some political marketing poll? The fact that certain candidates do not visit certain areas of the country because they have it "in the bag" should disgust you, too.
Daschle's thoughts from the article: He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.
Its good to worry about these things before they actually occur, but perhaps we are in the clear on this one... That being said - Im sorry to hear that Hatch is behind this... He is on the "good side" on a lot of issues involving corporate control over current and emerging technology... it seems like there is no one in Washington that you can stand behind 100% of the time.
Not knowing much latin myself, can someone fill me in as to what 'Deus Ex' means?
The answer, as always, is quickly derived from a google search:
In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.
Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to watch Fox, I don't have to watch CNN or FSTV
This is certainly correct. However, a choice between two differently tainted news publications is hardly the ideal. I hope people begin to recognize that news sources need not be tainted at all. A scenario that forces people to pick which flavor of bias they prefer is both foolish and dangerous; just as it is foolish and dangerous to vote for the "lesser of two evils" during elections.
I think that there is a ballance in the media today that is unparralleled in the course of history.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Honestly it doesn't even matter. Regardless of how our press stands in comparison to past ones, ours is tainted enough to prove fatal. Our press actively misleads the public; I have even heard polls indicating upwards of 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Here is a much more conservative poll (just did a quick google search - gotta run soon) which indicates 45% of Americans believe Saddam was personally responsible (versus 40% who are undecided). Innocent people (American and Iraqi alike) have died as a result of this ignorance.
Let's take a look at what this would turn into, a parrot for whatever party is in control. On the off chance Nader gets elected in 2004, he would try to bend the rules of this (USA)BC to spout his views to the masses, just the same as Bush or Clinton would.
Not necessarily, because the USA-BC (or whatever it would be called) would not be beholden to the current administration. Ideally, it would not be beholden to anyone at all, actually. It needn't worry if CNN or Foxnews is kicking it in the pants ratings-wise. Its only concern would be maintaining a strict adherence to the principles of good reporting - just the facts; cite your sources; do not use loaded words (like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter"); do not censor images; and for [deity]'s sake - absolutely NO SPECIAL EFFECTS! Do you think the BBC is a parrot for Tony Blair? Take a look at an article on the front page about him... here is a link... Do you feel this article is skewed in favor or against him? Seems pretty impartial to me. It containts quotes from people attacking him; and his subsequent replies. This is what news sources are supposed to do - and nothing more.
The BBC is a government subsidized quasi-monopoly. Using the BBC as a good example when it comes to media consolidation is abolsutely stupid, since they stand for what we are NOT wanting to happen to US media.
I disagree completely. I would love for there to be a public-funded, comprehensive American news source along the same lines of the BBC. Ralph Nader agrees and hence, he got my vote. One thing people need to remember is that the free-market is not an inherently Good Thing. It is simply a tool, and can be a very good or a very bad thing depending on how it is applied, and on the nature of the market in question. Soda pop, cameras, backpacks -- these are all markets where the free-market should rule. Markets where safety and environmental impact is prominent (such as the auto and airline industries) should be left to the free market, but tempered by the government through regulation. And with news media, there should be at least one source that is entirely removed from markets altogether. It should have no advertising and be publically funded.
I gave up watching TV and listening to the radio long ago. There's simply nothing good on anymore, and the radio has been crap for years. I'm sure many of you feel the same way.
:(
I feel exactly the same way. However, it still matters, whether you or I choose to watch it or not. More power in the hands of fewer people will affect you regardless. They will have more power to control elections; more power to sell wars; more power to do anything they want. The crappy music that gets pumped over the airwaves is the *least* of my worries when talking about media deregulation.
Time to get a new sig I suppose...
I think a large part of the unreality of CG is due to the fact that they are showing things that you know to be absolutely impossible (like Jabba the Hutt). Your brain just can't get over that fact, so it will never look as real as something you can tell yourself is a real, physical object. However, when I saw the first footage from Final Flight of the Osiris, I didn't yet know that it was CG, and it took some convincing for a friend to get me to realize it wasn't live-action.
I disagree, because I can buy into Jabba the Hut just fine in Return of the Jedi. Its not that I take one look at a CG Jabba and say to myself "BS - thats impossible!" -- I just look at him and get a sense that there is nothing sitting there. When Leia falls into Jabba in RotJ, I can see how he moves and get a feel for his body texture, etc. Its not that I demand realistic, found-in-a-zoo animals or human CG characters -- I just find certain effects believable and others not. More often than not I feel CG effects are truly unbelievable.
I think my problem with CG is slightly different than what you are talking about. First off, I could tell right away that FFotO was CG. That being said, the CG in FFotO does not bother me in the slightest. The reason why I can "buy into" the CG of FFotO is that the entire FFotO world is rendered in the same way. I am, therefore, able to buy into that world - just as I can easily (and gladly) buy into a world like Toy Story or Spirited Away. Those films are not trying to trick me into thinking anything is "real" - they are simply taking me to new worlds altogether, and giving me new definitions of what is "real." Im not sure if that came out right - it is somewhat difficult for me to explain my viewpoint.
The real problem with the believability of CG is not technological - it is that it is weilded with no talent and discretion by modern, crappy filmmakers. Lucas is the pinnacle, shining example of how not to use CG.
I don't really get your premise, why is a puppet any more "real" than CG?
Because, when another character reaches out and touches the puppet or model, you believe he/she is actually touching something... With CG, it is usually so obvious that the CG character isn't really there. The other actor (who is in reality is looking at a blue screen) stares intently at where the eyes are supposed to be, but you can just tell he isn't seeing the creature standing there. You can tell because the character does not react to the subtle nuance of the CG character. When the CG creature wags a huge, spiked tail, or shifts its weight suddenly, the other actor does not react to these movements. I dont know how else to explain it - it is obvious the creature is simply not there. Chewie from Star Wars was much more believable than even Gollum... The difference is in the minute, subtle nuance found in their interactions.
CG has its place and can definitely add to the realism of a picture (films like Jurassic park used CG very effectively), but in most cases it detracts IMHO.
Animations like Roger Rabbit are just in a different category altogether. The creators of Roger Rabbit were not trying to convice me that Roger is a character that I would believe in real life. He was, obviously, a cartoon, and it works fine.
Just face it. With CG, Hollywood just isnt cool anymore.
Not cool? Take a look at this... is it getting hot in here, or is it just them? *puts on sunglasses - makes dual "gun gesture" with both hands - winks*
Cool, indeed...
I don't see this result as anything particularly surprising.
You may not be surprised, but remember that we are talking about video games here. Think about what the average parent or teacher thinks about the hobby of playing video games. Remember that bashing video games as a waste of time and a cause of anti-social disorders and/or depression is a frequent past-time of the press. Remember that the fact that the Columbine kids played Doom was often mentioned when talking about the murders.
When a study comes out that proves that there are real-world, physical benefits to playing GTA3 -- this would definitely surprise a lot of people. Gamers often already know about these benefits. I, for instance, have noticed that my positioning and directional skills seem to be better than most peoples. For example, if we are driving in an area which we are not familiar with - making a lot of turns, etc - I notice that I am able to keep my bearings on the cardinal directions (i.e. which way is north, etc) much better than most people. These skills have been tuned playing first-person shooters for many years, as in those games it is a strategic advantage to "make sense" of the map as a whole, despite the fact that they can only see a little bit of it at any given time. Whenever you make a turn, you mentally map your position and bearings on a top-down mental image of sorts. At any given time, you know the direction of all the previous rooms you have been to - even on a large map. Not everyone can do this well without practice.
Fox tells the story without a liberal slant.
That is putting it mildly.
Seriously though, it is sad that so many people do not understand that, above all other things, the media should strive to be unbiased. I actually saw a big picture advertisement on Foxnews.com for one of their anchorman's books that had the subcaption "winning the war of liberty of liberalism." Now, regardless of whether you are a liberal or not, this *should* make you sick to your stomach. Sadly, I know most people do not understand why this is a Bad Thing. The other news networks may indeed have a liberal slant, but I have NEVER seen an ad for a book saying "winning the war against conservatives" on CNN.com. FoxNews has sunk to new lows (Geraldo aside), and is in a league of its own.
All the corporate American news sources are tainted, albeit less so than FoxNews, with this corruption. The CNN headline after the start of the war in Afghanistan "America Strikes Back" is a loaded headline. The headline is, in effect, telling you two things. First, that we were not at war before this most recent invasion, and second, that we are attacking in self-defense. Both points are debatable, but CNN felt it necessary to make up the viewers minds for them. Its subtle, but its extremely important that people begin to pick up on these things. Real news sources should stick to presenting facts, and facts alone.
If you want to check out better news sources, look into Reuters and BBC News.
Anybody who doesn't already know that almost all fast food is fattening and unhealthy is a moron. McDonalds is high in cholesterol/fat/calories/plutonium/whatever. They do not lie about it. They just don't highly publicize it. But the information is there if you look.
I agree. The book I referenced, however, goes much, much deeper than that. It gives you political, ethical, environmental, economic and social reasons to avoid fast food. There are many reasons to stop eating fast food beyond how utterly unhealthy it is. Read it and you will see what I'm talking about. This book should be required reading IMHO.
How does McDonalds lie to you?
Here is a short list.
But aren't Splinter Cell and Raven Shield simply third party games that have licensed the Unreal engine? That is what confused me - I thought you made it sound as if they were seperate Unreal engines. If they are counted, then Half Life and Jedi Knight, etc, should be counted for ids side - thats all im saying.
Well whatever... I guess I dont see the distinction between ids engine evolution and unreals, other than epic seems to release them in smaller time increments. I am not an expert, but I would think ids engines do in fact have some relation to those that came before it and are therefore not "totally new," just as unreals are not.
... What?
;) It was a decent action movie.
Relax man, I liked Lord of the Rings, I assure you. Put down the pitchfork.
My point was simply that this study was trying to determine why certain movies succeed and why others do not -- not determine what makes a quality movie. What makes a quality movie, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. You cant scientifically calculate what makes a film quality -- but you can determine which elements combine to make commercially successful, widely-loved films. Make sense?
And for the record, I am entitled to my opinion.. and ranking Fast and the Furious as the 114th best movie makes me cringe. That is all. Thank you.
Oh come on, if a movie isn't 40pc plot it is not worth watching.
I completely disagree. Different films/works can work for different reasons. Some can work entirely without plot, and instead rely simply on character development and/or other methods.
The Thin Red Line is one such example. No plot, very little character development -- just characters "reflecting" for more than two hours. It works, in its own way, regardless. Jaws is an even better example. The plot is simply "Shark terrorizes beach community" -- the power of the film comes from an intense atmosphere and mood - not plot.
To use another mainstream example, the film GhostBusters was at its best when it was unconcerned with plot - when it just followed these characters through their daily lives as they, of all things, trapped ghosts. The film did not get its energy from the unnecessary and predictable "save the world" plot tacked on.
The best Bret Easton Ellis books work similarly. "Less Than Zero" and "American Psycho" have minimal to not plot, yet are very good, fascinating books.
Did anyone else feel it was an insult to those with intelligence that plot took only an 8% grab?
;) is measuring how to make a successful movie - not a quality one. Forget Lord of the Rings and look at Charlies Angels, Fast and Furious, etc. *shudder*
Not really. Remember, this "study" (and I use the term loosely
Id, on the other hand, likes to start "from scratch". Between Unreal I and UT2K3/Unreal 2/Splinter Cell/Raven Shield/all of the other Unreal-based games out today, Id's gone through Quake 2, Quake 3, and is gearing up for Doom 3.
Huh?
There have been many games based on the various Quake engines -- at least as many, if not more so, than on the Unreal engine. You name Splinter Cell and Raven Shield, and I can name Jedi Knight 2, Return to Castle Wolfenstein - even Half-Life as various games based on a Quake engine. The list goes on and on for both sides...
What is stopping Microsoft from putting out a version or patch of/to IE that has this feature?
;) legitimate uses for popups on the web. Moronic IE users would probably never know why a particularly site was not working correctly because a popup was being blocked. I really think the blocking of popups should be something you specifically apply to your browser - yes, perhaps a patch would be sufficient - but I dont think it should be included by default.
I would imagine this is similar to TV manufacturers not including commercial-blocking features with their TV sets by default. Sure, you can buy equipment to do this, but you have to specifically take that course of action yourself. Commercials, while annoying, are healthy for the TV business, and TV manufacturers cannot destroy this industry without hurting themselves. The feature can exist, but it cannot be included by default.
Microsoft, as the de-facto standard of web browsers, needs to think carefully before swiping out entire features altogether. After all, "window.open" is technically part of the javascript spec, and there are some (though not many
* Or the Justice Department of how many had marijuana in their systems prior to dying or killing others in shootouts/robberies/whatever.
* Or how many spouses/partners killed their partners and/or themselves and had marijuana in their system
* Or how many boaters/jet skiers die each year during accidents and marijuana being in their systems
I'll venture a guess... "not many."
I am sorry to hear about your friend, but its silly to think they commited suicide because of marijuana. Most people who commit suicide do so for valid reasons (or, what they perceive to be valid reasons). Was he/she depressed? The "marijuana" could just have easily been "alocohol" or "Xanax" or nothing at all. I assure you, this person was thinking about suicide before lighting up that joint. Also, people have commited suicide from ODing on myriad perfectly legal substances. What's the solution - banning everything that can be an aid to suicide? Its, unfortunately, all very arbitrary - and easy to blame something like marijuana for the suicide when the real reasons behind it are much more scary and personal.
As for your other friend - again, I am sorry to hear about what happaned... Driving under the influence of drugs (legal and illegal alike) is ill-advised. Also, you are also not supposed to drive shortly after giving blood. *shrugs*
I wish I had mod points :) LOL
*stands on soapbox*
People, making the process of voting physically easier is not the solution to curing voter apathy. Politically apathetic citizens became that way because of one of two reasons:
1. they are genuinely not interested in politics, or they feel it does not affect them in any way
2. they feel there is no candidate worth voting for
In reality, these two reasons are caused by the same thing -- ignorance. Politics DOES affect you, and there ARE candidates worth voting for. Online voting may make the process easier, but it does nothing to cure the problems infecting the system itself.
Here is a quick checklist to see if you, or someone you know, is, in fact, Part of the Problem!!
1. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", you are part of the problem. You should find a candidate that you actually like, because they are out there (though, admittedly, they may not have a cute icon like an elephant or a donkey). At the very least, you should familiarize yourself with the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.
2. If you vote on a single, smoke-and-mirrors issue, you are part of the problem. E.g. soccer moms who vote Republican because they are "pro life" when Republicans have little interest in outlawing abortion. Its ok to feel strongly about a particular issue, but at least look into whether or not the people you are voting for will actually do something about it. More often than not, hot-button issues like abortion are simply split between the two major parties - Democrats are "pro choice" and Republicans are "pro life" - but abortion remains legal regardless of which is in office. Voting along these arbitrary, marketing-driven lines accomplishes nothing. Do not allow your vote to be "assumed" by a major party because you feel a certain way about an issue - make them show you something.
3. If you do not vote at all because you think there is no one worth voting for, then you are part of the problem. There are many different voices out there, and one is sure to align fairly closely with your own. Whenever possible, one should always vote for third parties because, if for no other reason, you can consider it a vote for more choices and an end to the lock of the two-party system (the first hurdle).
4. And lastly - register yourself as an independant! There is no reason for you to allow yourself to be assumed. They have to earn your vote - every time. The fact that people check themselves off as subscribing to a particular laundry list of stances on issues never ceases to amaze and disgust me. Why allow yourself to become part of some political marketing poll? The fact that certain candidates do not visit certain areas of the country because they have it "in the bag" should disgust you, too.
*steps down from soapbox*
"There is a moment of sheer panic when I realise that Paul's apartment overlooks the park, and is obviously more expensive than mine."
Oh, and you can still download VisiCalc in case you run DOS or Windows and have 27,520 bytes to spare.
Oh yeah, let me just go ahead and break out my extra 50 gig hard drive I just happen to have sittin... did you say bytes?
Daschle's thoughts from the article: He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.
Its good to worry about these things before they actually occur, but perhaps we are in the clear on this one... That being said - Im sorry to hear that Hatch is behind this... He is on the "good side" on a lot of issues involving corporate control over current and emerging technology... it seems like there is no one in Washington that you can stand behind 100% of the time.
Not knowing much latin myself, can someone fill me in as to what 'Deus Ex' means?
The answer, as always, is quickly derived from a google search:
In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.
Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.
I'll second the Cemetary Man nod... now if I can only get my Region-2 DVD of it to play correctly. ;)