Easy: because it is overwrought, overly sentimental filmmaking. It's a bad film, period.
Instead of Shawshank, I could have chosen any film from Spielburg (except for Close Encounters). Shindler's List, for example. Shindler's List tries so hard to be "good" it turns "bad". (As does, say, "Raging Bull." It's a great film -- but it tries *too hard* to be great. And as a result it nearly implodes in on itself.)
I chose Star Trek because, well, Star Trek is just plain bad, period. IMHO, Star Trek takes itself way too seriously. And the only place it succeeds is with its die-hard fans. But die hard fans don't a good film make. (This is why, I think, Asmimov, Heinlein, and, yes, even Neil Stephenson (sp?) are considered "great" writers. They aren't, but they have enough misguided fans to think otherwise. Stephenson, for example, is a bad imitation of Thomas Pynchon.)
Anyway, for the sake of argument, here's a few films that I've seen in the past week that I think are, hand down, great films:
- Chaplin's "City Lights" - Cassavetes "A Woman Under the Influence" and "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" - Fellini's "And the Ship Sails On" and "The Nights of Cabiria" - Metropolis (the original -- not the re-release)
And (as if that weren't enough) I saw what I consider to be the single greatest film *ever* this week:
- Carl Th. Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" with Richard Einhorn's new score. Hands down, this is the greatest film I have ever seen. If you have a DVD and have about 25 bucks, do yourself a favor and purchase this DVD. Not only will you support Criterion (who take years to remaster this and other great films), but you'll see a film that might change your life.
(I'm not kidding -- this film is a masterpiece. I'd heard about it for years but only last Saturday watched it. I was overwhelmed. The ending alone is one of the most disturbing things I've seen. Hard to believe this thing is, what?, nearly 70 years old? And this nearly flawless print was found in 1981 in a Danish mental institution? Very weird.)
For the sake of staying on topic, I'll add this:
With the exception of City Lights, I watched all of these films on my computer. And because I love these films so, I actually *bought* all of the films (thank god for reel.com and dvdexpress coupons!). So despite what the DVD manufactures think, I have no inclination -- not even the slightest urge -- to pirate films. I know I could, but when it comes to films, I want quality -- and DVD (with the exception of anything produced by Madacy) gives me that.
The last thing I want is some crappy rip of, say, "Mean Streets" on 2 CDRs. Please.
I actually watch a lot of films on my computer. Last night I watched both "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" and John Cassavetes' "A Woman Under the Influence."
Tonight, I'm planning on watching the first volume of Chaplin's Mutuals and Renoir's "Grand Illusion".
But I'm watching the films to study them (I'm a screenwriter) and not to kick back and relax.
I find that if I try to watch "good" films in the comfort of my home theater, I generally doze off.
The computer (and 17" monitor) lends itself to pretty close scutiny. I'm not a DVD purist either -- I mean, I'd rather watch a film and understand its story than worry about whether DTS sounds better than DD 5.1. Likewise, I'd rather have a so-so print of a film (any DVD released by Madacy) than to not have the film at all. But I digress...
Watching a film on a computer/monitor combo is like reading a book in a library at one of those wooden library desks and hardwood chairs -- you're kinda forced to stay focused because you don't have a lot of creature comforts.
I agree, though, in theory: if I want to watch, say, a crappy film -- "Shawshank Redemption," for example, or any Star Trek film -- I'll go downstairs, sprawl out on the sofa, unplug my mind, fire up the DVD, and wonder aloud more times than I care to count why crap like this continues to be made. (I know the answer of course -- because it makes money and because it's the sort of crap the film-going public likes -- but again, I digress...)
This is what I mean: there is nothing on televsion these days that needs to be "paused" so I can stand up, walk down the hall, take a leak, come back, sit down, and pick up where I left.
You're telling me you can't miss 15 seconds of your television show to take a leak?
I'm not making any judgments -- I'm just amazed. Are people that smitten with their televsion shows that they can't miss even 15 seconds? Isn't that what commercials are for? Oh no, wait, you pause so that you don't have to *watch* the commercials -- yet you'd rather sit in your chair not watching the commercials than get up and take a leak and get a bowl of taco chips and guacomole?
This TiVo thing is just an excuse for organizing your life around a cultural black hole. Plus, it scores points because it's a "geek toy."
It's worthless. It does nothing to improve the quality of your life.
Can someone explain to me why in hell would I want to "pause" or "rewind" television?
This seems to be TiVo's big selling point. Why in the *hell* would I want to pause, say, "The West Wing" or rewing "ER".
I'm sorry, but there is nothing on television that even remotely necessitates me to "pause" it so that I can "study" it closer.
"Oh gee, did George Clooney really grab hold of that patient's arm like that?"
"Whoops, say, look at that. Did you just see what I just saw? Ally McBeal walked right past the Dean and DeLuca on the corner! Did you see that? Let's look at it again. Sure enough, she's *walking* right past. Wow. That's incredible!"
What a completely absurd notion.
And, yes, I understand sports *might* be something you want to pause and rewind -- but apart from football or baseball -- what televsion show necessitates a "pause?"
Please. What a bunch of idiocy from couch potatoes.
I think you mean that *you're* in the wrong part of the country.
Jobs are where they are.
People are, too, of course. But the job isn't searching for you. You're searching for the job.
I mean, it may be the job karma is calling for you -- and if that's the case, well, then I guess you could say that the job is in the wrong part of the country. But since there's no real way to quantify and assess karma, it's probably best to say that *you're* in the wrong part of the country.
Unless someone knows of an open source karmatic assessment program.
But then again: this could be the very job that you ought to embark upon -- a Karma assessing program.
Such a karmatic assessment program is really nowhere yet -- so, in theory, it *could* be anywhere. And since you're somewhere -- and somewhere is within anywhere -- it looks (to me at least) that not only are *you* in the right place for the karmatic assessor but that the karmatic assesor (since it's nowhere and, ergo, everywhere) it, too, is in the right place.
There, see: karma at work. Too bad we couldn't assess and quantify that moment (one paragraph back) when karma seemed to strike. But it does that a lot -- strike without notice.
Wait! Oops, no. I thought it just struck again. That was an itch. Oh well.
If you read some of the recent commentary on Slashdot you'll see (a) that certain buzzwords ("free","open source", "linux", "Carmack", "privacy") generate almost pavlovian responses from Slashdotters and that (b) there is a mob mentality at work here that oftentimes belies the true spirit of the posted topics. (People, in other words, aren't reading the "original" material -- they're simply responding to the posts and, more often than not, completely missing the context ofthe original article) and (c) the result is oftentimes meaningless noise. Even the voices of reason -- of rationality -- oftentimes don't even get moderated up.
I see posts oftentimes talking about the "Slashdot effect" -- as in: "Let's Slashdot the site..." And more often than not I get the sense that the poster has no real sense of what he/she is saying, has no real sense of the context in which it should (yes, that's right: I said "should") be said, and has no real depth of understanding of the implications of his/her words.
I won't take the high road and say I don't do this. I do do this -- and I have -- and anyone can check my recent posts and see the proof.
I'm fascinated by Slashdot and the community it appears to generate. But like all communities there's an authentic "core" at work and a lunatic "fringe" that often misunderstands the core and, ultimately, misrespresents the core. Too often the world outside the community is only interested in the fringe and not the core (since, as we all know from reading our Tolstoy, that all happy families are happy in the same way -- so what's the point about writing about happiness, right? It's the sadness -- the conflict -- the makes for the best television.)
Here, I worry that the fringe is overtaking the core -- and the end result is hollow hype: the same sort of meaningless, parasitic criticism that gets written by Berst or Dvorak or ZDnet or PCWeek. The proof of this comes when Slashdot is seen as merely fringe commentary. In this Wired story, oddly enough (or maybe not so oddly) that exactly how Slashdot comes across: as part of a manic finge that misresponds to key stimuli (the buzzwords, in other words). Pavlovian dogs, in other words.
But the internet itself engenders that sort of thinking, I guess. Sorta like the 1-Click Ordering patented by Amazon: one click, and you can send a well-intentioned (but ill-thought-out) "fuck you" spiralling around the globe.
BlackICE Defender -- the "firewall" software from Network ICE -- also logs MAC and IP addresses of all of the so-called "intruders" that it catches.
How, exactly, is this different than what's going on here? I mean, is it just because that logs of the intrusions are kept on the client machines instead of a central server?
Yeah but the problem with C|Net and much of the otherstream "mainstream digital analysis" sites are that they consistently ring hollow. Jesse Berst, for example.
It's pretty much sensationalist writing informed by the "trend of the moment": Here's-10-Reasons-Why-Y2K-Should-Scare-The-Hell-Ou t-Of-You. Or, maybe: Here's-My-Dumb-Reasons-Why-DSL-Will-Fail.
No, they're not out to "scare" people -- and I defy a slashdot reader to admit that he/she was actually "scared" by anything posted in C|Net -- but they're out to cash in on the hype -- and they're out to stir up the hype.
It's like a kid on a playground who spots a fight and then starts goading one of the fighters -- "Your mama dresses like Flo from Alice, you trailer park piece of poop" -- knowing that his taunts will only make the fight worse than it is for the participants -- but much better than it was for the spectators.
That's the big problem with C|Net -- you cats more than often not don't contribute analysis to the debate. You stir the flames, sit back, and when you're criticized -- you claim that the flames were already burning long before you got there.
I don't buy your assertion that, hey, give us a break, we're just trying to make you laugh. That's bunk. If you wanna make me laugh, tell me a joke. But don't jump on the hype-wagon, push my buttons, and then claim you're just the messenger -- and look, dude, lighten up and don't kill the messenger.
I may in the minority here, but my early computer days were spent on TRS-80's (and occasionally on Commodore Pets with those funky flat plastic keyboards) -- in school and in the back of the local Radio Shack.
It always sorta disheartens me to hear these days (circa 1980) defined by the early Apple machines.
Yeah, the Apples were around, but I know that within my circle of geek friends, you were pretty much defined by your knowledge of Z80 Assembly -- or your lack thereof.
Plus -- to keep somewhat on topic -- I must say that 80 Micro was one of the greatest computer magazines out there. And, yeah, I remember the Byte magazines of this time -- more often than not focusing in on the TRS-80's, as well. I remember these were good issues of Byte, too -- thick, with lots of content.
80 Micro, too: I remember looking forward to each issue and typing in those long, tedious porgrams.
Heck, for us TRS-80 folks, this was the era of LDOS, NewDOS, and DOSPlus -- Big Five software (Targ, anyone?); copying protected disks with Super Utility Plus; and (IMHO) the first real "3d" First person shooters -- DeathMaze 5000, Asylum I, and Asylum II.
Anyone remember these games?
I rarely see the TRS-80 mentioned on these forums. Most people (at least those who didn't much care for the TRS-80's somber black and white screens) went with the Apple or the Atari 400/800.
But, the TRS-80 Model I and II and III and even the IV were great machines. I had an old Model III up until 1986; I did my college honor's project using Scripsit and my trusty dot-matrix printer.
There seems to be a lot of talk here about the fact that Q3A may (or may not)be a rehashed version of Wolfenstein, Doom, etc. etc
What I don't see mentioned is one of the main reasons why I'll gladly shell my bucks over to Id: they put out quality product, period.
95% of gaming companies don't do this -- they either *can't* do it because they don't have the coding talen or they *won't* do it because the corporate suits insist that they release their product prematurely.
I mean, I'm not an advocate of gaming magazines -- they seem to be glorified hype-machines with dippy writers -- but they are a good thermometer of the gaming culture. Maybe not the "hardcore" culture -- but I think they give a pretty good idea of what Joe Consumer buys when he/she steps into a Best Buy and wants the latest "game".
Now, take a look at the games they "review" at any given time: 85% of the reviews in any given are way, way below the "satisfactory" level. Companies out there are just shovelling the stuff out -- to make money, yes -- but also to cash in on the latest hot license. I mean, stop and think: does anyone think for a minute that there's a *high* probability that the Matrix license will lead to a quality game? It'll probably lead to a so-so game, a mediocore review, and then will be forgotten in two months time.
Id, on other hand, consistently scores pretty well with these gaming magazines and writers. (And, in a tangent rant, you always get the jackoff writers writing dumb editorials: "Hmm. I don't really know what to write in my editorial, so I'll write an editorial about not knowing what to write about in an editorial." Or: "Well, folks, it's been a good XX years, but I've got to move on. I've seen X, and I've seen Y, and well, I can't think of anything else to say, so I'll just write this column about writing a column about saying goodbye to writing columns.")
And, sure, these writers usually say much of what is being said here: that Quake X is a rehash, another Doom, a prettier Wolfenstein. Still, they usually admit (rightly, I think) that, well, Id pretty much sets the standard for graphics and gameplay that many, many other companies follow.
Not to mention they oftentimes set the standard for hardware purchasing, too. I mean, I go by the Id rule: I upgrade whenever a new Quake is out because, well, that's the time to upgrade. I know that if I want pretty eye-candy in Quake, I'll probably get a new graphics card and a new CPU (and maybe a new mobo).
Although Id has problems. The initial releases of Quake 2, for example, were a mess. But they're pretty good about keeping in touch with the community and fixing the problems. I can't say the same for other developers. (Some developers, yes: the Unreal folks, the Half-Life, folks, etc.)
But I just get the sense that Carmack and Co. -- while they of course have to deal with the suits and with their profit margins -- are more likely to put out a quality piece of work than not.
It's not a crap shoot with Id. You know you'll get some a topnothc product. There's no doubt about that. You may not like the gameplay -- or you may find it derivitive, whatever -- but gameplay theory issues aside, the product itself is always kickass.
I mean, hell, Delta Force 2 is a lot like Delta Force. SpecOPS II is a *lot* like SpecOPS I. And with those two products, I don't see the sort of technological leaps you see in Id's products.
Actually this is pretty insightful discussion about the evolution of graphics cards -- someone oughta compile an editorial with some of these comments. Beats the hell out of any off-kilter bizarro view of the industry by Dvorak or Berst.
That aside, I gotta agree with a couple posters above who indicate that new features on graphics cards are a gamble -- T&L, Bump Mapping, etc.
Myself, I pretty go by the Quake rule for hardware: whenever a new Quake is out, it's time to upgrade the mobo/CPU/RAM/Graphics/sound card configuration to whatever works best (i.e. way, way above the minimum requirements).
I've done this three times now -- just finished my third major upgrade last week -- and it seems an okay rule-of-thumb -- especially with regard to graphics cards.
Hey the Trash80's (a la TRS-80) were a great series of computers.
I don't know about anyone else, but a TRS-80 Model I Level II 4K RAM or Model III (running Asylum [hands down one of the best pre-DOOM 3D first-person games out there]) was fantastic.
Anyone remember Big-5 software and their Targ-clones and asteroids clones?
Ah, the joys of Z80 assembly, TRSDOS 1.3, LDOS, NewDOS...
Ah well. This is far off topic...
Re:My DSL provider is terrified of SDSL bandwidth
on
VDSL Demoed
·
· Score: 1
Ah, yes of course.
But your in the minority, my friend, if all you had to do was install a dingle, twist a gidget, and POOF, out pops baby bandwidth.
Here in Chicago area there are no gingles to twist or gidgets to push. Here, we wait for Ameritech.
And here, we all know (as evidenced by all of our posts on chi.internet) that if it can be fscked up, Ameritech will fsck it up.
I'm sure the same can be said for any other telco when it comes to DSL: PacBell, Boston Atlantic, etc.
The nightmares far, far outweigh the "chill dude, all's I had to do was place a call and it worked" installations.
My DSL provider is terrified of SDSL bandwidth
on
VDSL Demoed
·
· Score: 3
I'm not sure why this is exciting news.
Nevermind the obvious facts that (a) DSL is only available to a small percentage of the population due to the distance-from-CO requirements, (b) that getting DSL installed is a nightmare (Ameritech [for example] has to come out, install the line, then Rhythms, then you need to sync up properly, etc. etc.), (c) DSL pricing is still widely variable (I pay 49 bucks a months for 1.04/1.04 SDSL, yet a buddy of mine pays 185 bucks a month for 384/128 ADSL), (d) providers offering xDSL take anywhere from 4-12 weeks to actually the DSL working (because of, ahem, Ameritech fscking up the install, missing install dates, calling for additional $$$ for construction) -- nevermind these obvious facts, what makes this such uninteresting news is that unless VDSL uses some revolutionary sort of technology that means less expense for the telcos or that it somehow obviates the infamous "truck-roll" it'll only add more confusion to the already confused and expensive DSL market.
Not to mention that VDSL would probably only be affordable if it forces some sort of upload/download cap on the average home-user.
To me, a home-user, VDSL screams out a couple things: extremely fast downloads of MP3s and extremely fast downloads of warez, period. It means I can run a bigass server on a fat pipe.
So what?
I got an upload cap on my SDSL service (49 bucks/month which includes 1 gig upload w/additional uploads at 20 bucks a gig.)
Everyone is trying to limit everything -- downloads, uploads, the number of minutes for streaming video, etc. etc.
And what all this means is that everyone is terrified of bandwidth because bandwidth is expensive. So, please, you're gonna taunt me with VDSL but say, well, I'm capped to 20 gigs a month or capped to 10 mins a day of broadcast quality video, or use some weird-ass PPPoE protocol so that, well, it's DSL but it's not 24/7?
The first time I read this, I thought this was the funniest thing I'd heard in weeks.
But you gotta wonder -- in all seriousness -- if this isn't actually a pretty importent moment.
The idea of this -- us verus them, the users versus the processes they (could/should/ought to) control -- is metaphorically quite interesting.
I mean, the notion of allowing processes to fight back -- or wounding but not killing a process -- is pretty fascinating -- especially when everything is played out on a virtual battlefield.
It's quite frightening when you stop and think about it. Yeah, it's funny: but imagine somehow if artificial intelligence (on the part of the machines) is slipped in here and this whole thing is played out on a much larger scale -- on a much larger, much different sort of virtual battlefield.
It's funny, but the implications of this are pretty overwhelming.
One thing that should be mentioned about the X10's MouseRemotes (included, apparently, in the DVDAnywhere and now the MP3Anywhere) is that the mouse remote driver software doesn't work with wheel mice.
I've got a Logitech MouseMan+, and if the software is installed as it's supposed to be, it will disable the wheel on your mouse. (The mouse remote works fine, however.)
Apparently, this is a long standing problem with X10 (check usenet for more info).
There's a way to hook the MouseMan on a spare serial port, but I haven't figured this out.
It's goofy shit, IMHO. X10 oughta just write the damn driver software. It's a cool product.
Um, that's what it's like growing up just about anywhere.
I mean, everyone thinks their town is the most boring place in the world. "There's nothing to do, man. There's nothing here." Or: "I'm getting out one day. I'm gonna blow this joint."
My point is that while that sort of sense is undeniably true -- I felt it myself growing up in small-town Illinois ("Man, there's nothing to *do* here...it's just flatland and cornfields...") -- Kevin Smith doesn't do much to make it any less cliched.
You've got to be kidding me. "Grow up in Jersey for a while?"
Very insightful. Thanks.
Re:BWP did NOT invent this.
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
Kevin Smith? Bwahahahahahahaha.
Kevin Smith makes movies full of Generation-X angst. Phoney angst, I might add.
He's like Tarantino: the movie is about hipness and if you don't get it -- you lack it (hipness, that is) -- and, ha ha, the joke's on you.
Chasing Amy was a joke. Plot-wise, yeah, it was interesting: but story-wise? The characters were dudes, plain and simple. That, and the fact that any film with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are films to be feared.
But I know Smith has a huge following. A cult following. Like Tarantino. But when you cash in your hipness what's left? I mean, where's Tarantino now? (I'm serious: what's the next Tarantino project? Does anyone know?)
BWP had a great plot and even better story. The characters, yeah, were a little whiny -- all the nagging, the crying, the "you said this, no *you* said that" stuff -- but they worked. Ditto for PI -- a film which I thought was a bit indulgent but visually pretty damn cool.
Another great indie I just caught last night: "Niagra, Niagra." Bleak as hell, but interesting: real glimpse into what seemed like real lives. BWP was the same thing: a good glimpse. But Kevin Smith?
Bwahahahahahahahahah. A glimpse into one writer's half-hearted attempt at narcissism.
Slashdot Mirror
There used to be a signs above piano players that said, "Don't Shoot the Piano Player."
I've always wanted to make a movie with that as a title. Maybe drop the "Don't" part.
Wait a minute. Hmmmm.
Okay, nevermind.
Easy: because it is overwrought, overly sentimental filmmaking. It's a bad film, period.
Instead of Shawshank, I could have chosen any film from Spielburg (except for Close Encounters). Shindler's List, for example. Shindler's List tries so hard to be "good" it turns "bad". (As does, say, "Raging Bull." It's a great film -- but it tries *too hard* to be great. And as a result it nearly implodes in on itself.)
I chose Star Trek because, well, Star Trek is just plain bad, period. IMHO, Star Trek takes itself way too seriously. And the only place it succeeds is with its die-hard fans. But die hard fans don't a good film make. (This is why, I think, Asmimov, Heinlein, and, yes, even Neil Stephenson (sp?) are considered "great" writers. They aren't, but they have enough misguided fans to think otherwise. Stephenson, for example, is a bad imitation of Thomas Pynchon.)
Anyway, for the sake of argument, here's a few films that I've seen in the past week that I think are, hand down, great films:
- Chaplin's "City Lights"
- Cassavetes "A Woman Under the Influence" and "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie"
- Fellini's "And the Ship Sails On" and "The Nights of Cabiria"
- Metropolis (the original -- not the re-release)
And (as if that weren't enough) I saw what I consider to be the single greatest film *ever* this week:
- Carl Th. Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" with Richard Einhorn's new score. Hands down, this is the greatest film I have ever seen. If you have a DVD and have about 25 bucks, do yourself a favor and purchase this DVD. Not only will you support Criterion (who take years to remaster this and other great films), but you'll see a film that might change your life.
(I'm not kidding -- this film is a masterpiece. I'd heard about it for years but only last Saturday watched it. I was overwhelmed. The ending alone is one of the most disturbing things I've seen. Hard to believe this thing is, what?, nearly 70 years old? And this nearly flawless print was found in 1981 in a Danish mental institution? Very weird.)
For the sake of staying on topic, I'll add this:
With the exception of City Lights, I watched all of these films on my computer. And because I love these films so, I actually *bought* all of the films (thank god for reel.com and dvdexpress coupons!). So despite what the DVD manufactures think, I have no inclination -- not even the slightest urge -- to pirate films. I know I could, but when it comes to films, I want quality -- and DVD (with the exception of anything produced by Madacy) gives me that.
The last thing I want is some crappy rip of, say, "Mean Streets" on 2 CDRs. Please.
I actually watch a lot of films on my computer. Last night I watched both "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" and John Cassavetes' "A Woman Under the Influence."
Tonight, I'm planning on watching the first volume of Chaplin's Mutuals and Renoir's "Grand Illusion".
But I'm watching the films to study them (I'm a screenwriter) and not to kick back and relax.
I find that if I try to watch "good" films in the comfort of my home theater, I generally doze off.
The computer (and 17" monitor) lends itself to pretty close scutiny. I'm not a DVD purist either -- I mean, I'd rather watch a film and understand its story than worry about whether DTS sounds better than DD 5.1. Likewise, I'd rather have a so-so print of a film (any DVD released by Madacy) than to not have the film at all. But I digress...
Watching a film on a computer/monitor combo is like reading a book in a library at one of those wooden library desks and hardwood chairs -- you're kinda forced to stay focused because you don't have a lot of creature comforts.
I agree, though, in theory: if I want to watch, say, a crappy film -- "Shawshank Redemption," for example, or any Star Trek film -- I'll go downstairs, sprawl out on the sofa, unplug my mind, fire up the DVD, and wonder aloud more times than I care to count why crap like this continues to be made. (I know the answer of course -- because it makes money and because it's the sort of crap the film-going public likes -- but again, I digress...)
This is what I mean: there is nothing on televsion these days that needs to be "paused" so I can stand up, walk down the hall, take a leak, come back, sit down, and pick up where I left.
You're telling me you can't miss 15 seconds of your television show to take a leak?
I'm not making any judgments -- I'm just amazed. Are people that smitten with their televsion shows that they can't miss even 15 seconds? Isn't that what commercials are for? Oh no, wait, you pause so that you don't have to *watch* the commercials -- yet you'd rather sit in your chair not watching the commercials than get up and take a leak and get a bowl of taco chips and guacomole?
This TiVo thing is just an excuse for organizing your life around a cultural black hole. Plus, it scores points because it's a "geek toy."
It's worthless. It does nothing to improve the quality of your life.
Can someone explain to me why in hell would I want to "pause" or "rewind" television?
This seems to be TiVo's big selling point. Why in the *hell* would I want to pause, say, "The West Wing" or rewing "ER".
I'm sorry, but there is nothing on television that even remotely necessitates me to "pause" it so that I can "study" it closer.
"Oh gee, did George Clooney really grab hold of that patient's arm like that?"
"Whoops, say, look at that. Did you just see what I just saw? Ally McBeal walked right past the Dean and DeLuca on the corner! Did you see that? Let's look at it again. Sure enough, she's *walking* right past. Wow. That's incredible!"
What a completely absurd notion.
And, yes, I understand sports *might* be something you want to pause and rewind -- but apart from football or baseball -- what televsion show necessitates a "pause?"
Please. What a bunch of idiocy from couch potatoes.
I think you mean that *you're* in the wrong part of the country.
Jobs are where they are.
People are, too, of course. But the job isn't searching for you. You're searching for the job.
I mean, it may be the job karma is calling for you -- and if that's the case, well, then I guess you could say that the job is in the wrong part of the country. But since there's no real way to quantify and assess karma, it's probably best to say that *you're* in the wrong part of the country.
Unless someone knows of an open source karmatic assessment program.
But then again: this could be the very job that you ought to embark upon -- a Karma assessing program.
Such a karmatic assessment program is really nowhere yet -- so, in theory, it *could* be anywhere. And since you're somewhere -- and somewhere is within anywhere -- it looks (to me at least) that not only are *you* in the right place for the karmatic assessor but that the karmatic assesor (since it's nowhere and, ergo, everywhere) it, too, is in the right place.
There, see: karma at work. Too bad we couldn't assess and quantify that moment (one paragraph back) when karma seemed to strike. But it does that a lot -- strike without notice.
Wait! Oops, no. I thought it just struck again. That was an itch. Oh well.
Keep an eye out. You never know.
No, I disagree.
If you read some of the recent commentary on Slashdot you'll see (a) that certain buzzwords ("free","open source", "linux", "Carmack", "privacy") generate almost pavlovian responses from Slashdotters and that (b) there is a mob mentality at work here that oftentimes belies the true spirit of the posted topics. (People, in other words, aren't reading the "original" material -- they're simply responding to the posts and, more often than not, completely missing the context ofthe original article) and (c) the result is oftentimes meaningless noise. Even the voices of reason -- of rationality -- oftentimes don't even get moderated up.
I see posts oftentimes talking about the "Slashdot effect" -- as in: "Let's Slashdot the site..." And more often than not I get the sense that the poster has no real sense of what he/she is saying, has no real sense of the context in which it should (yes, that's right: I said "should") be said, and has no real depth of understanding of the implications of his/her words.
I won't take the high road and say I don't do this. I do do this -- and I have -- and anyone can check my recent posts and see the proof.
I'm fascinated by Slashdot and the community it appears to generate. But like all communities there's an authentic "core" at work and a lunatic "fringe" that often misunderstands the core and, ultimately, misrespresents the core. Too often the world outside the community is only interested in the fringe and not the core (since, as we all know from reading our Tolstoy, that all happy families are happy in the same way -- so what's the point about writing about happiness, right? It's the sadness -- the conflict -- the makes for the best television.)
Here, I worry that the fringe is overtaking the core -- and the end result is hollow hype: the same sort of meaningless, parasitic criticism that gets written by Berst or Dvorak or ZDnet or PCWeek. The proof of this comes when Slashdot is seen as merely fringe commentary. In this Wired story, oddly enough (or maybe not so oddly) that exactly how Slashdot comes across: as part of a manic finge that misresponds to key stimuli (the buzzwords, in other words). Pavlovian dogs, in other words.
But the internet itself engenders that sort of thinking, I guess. Sorta like the 1-Click Ordering patented by Amazon: one click, and you can send a well-intentioned (but ill-thought-out) "fuck you" spiralling around the globe.
Just curious:
BlackICE Defender -- the "firewall" software from Network ICE -- also logs MAC and IP addresses of all of the so-called "intruders" that it catches.
How, exactly, is this different than what's going on here? I mean, is it just because that logs of the intrusions are kept on the client machines instead of a central server?
Yeah but the problem with C|Net and much of the otherstream "mainstream digital analysis" sites are that they consistently ring hollow. Jesse Berst, for example.
u t-Of-You. Or, maybe: Here's-My-Dumb-Reasons-Why-DSL-Will-Fail.
It's pretty much sensationalist writing informed by the "trend of the moment": Here's-10-Reasons-Why-Y2K-Should-Scare-The-Hell-O
No, they're not out to "scare" people -- and I defy a slashdot reader to admit that he/she was actually "scared" by anything posted in C|Net -- but they're out to cash in on the hype -- and they're out to stir up the hype.
It's like a kid on a playground who spots a fight and then starts goading one of the fighters -- "Your mama dresses like Flo from Alice, you trailer park piece of poop" -- knowing that his taunts will only make the fight worse than it is for the participants -- but much better than it was for the spectators.
That's the big problem with C|Net -- you cats more than often not don't contribute analysis to the debate. You stir the flames, sit back, and when you're criticized -- you claim that the flames were already burning long before you got there.
I don't buy your assertion that, hey, give us a break, we're just trying to make you laugh. That's bunk. If you wanna make me laugh, tell me a joke. But don't jump on the hype-wagon, push my buttons, and then claim you're just the messenger -- and look, dude, lighten up and don't kill the messenger.
It's parasitic analysis, IMHO.
Well, all this gets me nostalgic.
I may in the minority here, but my early computer days were spent on TRS-80's (and occasionally on Commodore Pets with those funky flat plastic keyboards) -- in school and in the back of the local Radio Shack.
It always sorta disheartens me to hear these days (circa 1980) defined by the early Apple machines.
Yeah, the Apples were around, but I know that within my circle of geek friends, you were pretty much defined by your knowledge of Z80 Assembly -- or your lack thereof.
Plus -- to keep somewhat on topic -- I must say that 80 Micro was one of the greatest computer magazines out there. And, yeah, I remember the Byte magazines of this time -- more often than not focusing in on the TRS-80's, as well. I remember these were good issues of Byte, too -- thick, with lots of content.
80 Micro, too: I remember looking forward to each issue and typing in those long, tedious porgrams.
Heck, for us TRS-80 folks, this was the era of LDOS, NewDOS, and DOSPlus -- Big Five software (Targ, anyone?); copying protected disks with Super Utility Plus; and (IMHO) the first real "3d" First person shooters -- DeathMaze 5000, Asylum I, and Asylum II.
Anyone remember these games?
I rarely see the TRS-80 mentioned on these forums. Most people (at least those who didn't much care for the TRS-80's somber black and white screens) went with the Apple or the Atari 400/800.
But, the TRS-80 Model I and II and III and even the IV were great machines. I had an old Model III up until 1986; I did my college honor's project using Scripsit and my trusty dot-matrix printer.
There seems to be a lot of talk here about the fact that Q3A may (or may not)be a rehashed version of Wolfenstein, Doom, etc. etc
What I don't see mentioned is one of the main reasons why I'll gladly shell my bucks over to Id: they put out quality product, period.
95% of gaming companies don't do this -- they either *can't* do it because they don't have the coding talen or they *won't* do it because the corporate suits insist that they release their product prematurely.
I mean, I'm not an advocate of gaming magazines -- they seem to be glorified hype-machines with dippy writers -- but they are a good thermometer of the gaming culture. Maybe not the "hardcore" culture -- but I think they give a pretty good idea of what Joe Consumer buys when he/she steps into a Best Buy and wants the latest "game".
Now, take a look at the games they "review" at any given time: 85% of the reviews in any given are way, way below the "satisfactory" level. Companies out there are just shovelling the stuff out -- to make money, yes -- but also to cash in on the latest hot license. I mean, stop and think: does anyone think for a minute that there's a *high* probability that the Matrix license will lead to a quality game? It'll probably lead to a so-so game, a mediocore review, and then will be forgotten in two months time.
Id, on other hand, consistently scores pretty well with these gaming magazines and writers. (And, in a tangent rant, you always get the jackoff writers writing dumb editorials: "Hmm. I don't really know what to write in my editorial, so I'll write an editorial about not knowing what to write about in an editorial." Or: "Well, folks, it's been a good XX years, but I've got to move on. I've seen X, and I've seen Y, and well, I can't think of anything else to say, so I'll just write this column about writing a column about saying goodbye to writing columns.")
And, sure, these writers usually say much of what is being said here: that Quake X is a rehash, another Doom, a prettier Wolfenstein. Still, they usually admit (rightly, I think) that, well, Id pretty much sets the standard for graphics and gameplay that many, many other companies follow.
Not to mention they oftentimes set the standard for hardware purchasing, too. I mean, I go by the Id rule: I upgrade whenever a new Quake is out because, well, that's the time to upgrade. I know that if I want pretty eye-candy in Quake, I'll probably get a new graphics card and a new CPU (and maybe a new mobo).
Although Id has problems. The initial releases of Quake 2, for example, were a mess. But they're pretty good about keeping in touch with the community and fixing the problems. I can't say the same for other developers. (Some developers, yes: the Unreal folks, the Half-Life, folks, etc.)
But I just get the sense that Carmack and Co. -- while they of course have to deal with the suits and with their profit margins -- are more likely to put out a quality piece of work than not.
It's not a crap shoot with Id. You know you'll get some a topnothc product. There's no doubt about that. You may not like the gameplay -- or you may find it derivitive, whatever -- but gameplay theory issues aside, the product itself is always kickass.
I mean, hell, Delta Force 2 is a lot like Delta Force. SpecOPS II is a *lot* like SpecOPS I. And with those two products, I don't see the sort of technological leaps you see in Id's products.
They always put out some wildass wicked shit.
Actually this is pretty insightful discussion about the evolution of graphics cards -- someone oughta compile an editorial with some of these comments. Beats the hell out of any off-kilter bizarro view of the industry by Dvorak or Berst.
That aside, I gotta agree with a couple posters above who indicate that new features on graphics cards are a gamble -- T&L, Bump Mapping, etc.
Myself, I pretty go by the Quake rule for hardware: whenever a new Quake is out, it's time to upgrade the mobo/CPU/RAM/Graphics/sound card configuration to whatever works best (i.e. way, way above the minimum requirements).
I've done this three times now -- just finished my third major upgrade last week -- and it seems an okay rule-of-thumb -- especially with regard to graphics cards.
Hey the Trash80's (a la TRS-80) were a great series of computers.
I don't know about anyone else, but a TRS-80 Model I Level II 4K RAM or Model III (running Asylum [hands down one of the best pre-DOOM 3D first-person games out there]) was fantastic.
Anyone remember Big-5 software and their Targ-clones and asteroids clones?
Ah, the joys of Z80 assembly, TRSDOS 1.3, LDOS, NewDOS...
Ah well. This is far off topic...
Ah, yes of course.
But your in the minority, my friend, if all you had to do was install a dingle, twist a gidget, and POOF, out pops baby bandwidth.
Here in Chicago area there are no gingles to twist or gidgets to push. Here, we wait for Ameritech.
And here, we all know (as evidenced by all of our posts on chi.internet) that if it can be fscked up, Ameritech will fsck it up.
I'm sure the same can be said for any other telco when it comes to DSL: PacBell, Boston Atlantic, etc.
The nightmares far, far outweigh the "chill dude, all's I had to do was place a call and it worked" installations.
I'm not sure why this is exciting news.
Nevermind the obvious facts that (a) DSL is only available to a small percentage of the population due to the distance-from-CO requirements, (b) that getting DSL installed is a nightmare (Ameritech [for example] has to come out, install the line, then Rhythms, then you need to sync up properly, etc. etc.), (c) DSL pricing is still widely variable (I pay 49 bucks a months for 1.04/1.04 SDSL, yet a buddy of mine pays 185 bucks a month for 384/128 ADSL), (d) providers offering xDSL take anywhere from 4-12 weeks to actually the DSL working (because of, ahem, Ameritech fscking up the install, missing install dates, calling for additional $$$ for construction) -- nevermind these obvious facts, what makes this such uninteresting news is that unless VDSL uses some revolutionary sort of technology that means less expense for the telcos or that it somehow obviates the infamous "truck-roll" it'll only add more confusion to the already confused and expensive DSL market.
Not to mention that VDSL would probably only be affordable if it forces some sort of upload/download cap on the average home-user.
To me, a home-user, VDSL screams out a couple things: extremely fast downloads of MP3s and extremely fast downloads of warez, period. It means I can run a bigass server on a fat pipe.
So what?
I got an upload cap on my SDSL service (49 bucks/month which includes 1 gig upload w/additional uploads at 20 bucks a gig.)
Everyone is trying to limit everything -- downloads, uploads, the number of minutes for streaming video, etc. etc.
And what all this means is that everyone is terrified of bandwidth because bandwidth is expensive. So, please, you're gonna taunt me with VDSL but say, well, I'm capped to 20 gigs a month or capped to 10 mins a day of broadcast quality video, or use some weird-ass PPPoE protocol so that, well, it's DSL but it's not 24/7?
Please. Forget it.
All this is fine and good for DVD players -- and especially nice for the Linux/DVD convergence -- but what's the outlook for actual DVD copying?
What's the time frame for, say, being able to buy a PC-DVD-RAM (RW?) player and making a mirror image of the DVD disk?
I understand that current units cost upwards of 15K. When will this hardware reach the consumer level?
Look, I'll explain what the point of this.
The first time I read this, I thought this was the funniest thing I'd heard in weeks.
But you gotta wonder -- in all seriousness -- if this isn't actually a pretty importent moment.
The idea of this -- us verus them, the users versus the processes they (could/should/ought to) control -- is metaphorically quite interesting.
I mean, the notion of allowing processes to fight back -- or wounding but not killing a process -- is pretty fascinating -- especially when everything is played out on a virtual battlefield.
It's quite frightening when you stop and think about it. Yeah, it's funny: but imagine somehow if artificial intelligence (on the part of the machines) is slipped in here and this whole thing is played out on a much larger scale -- on a much larger, much different sort of virtual battlefield.
It's funny, but the implications of this are pretty overwhelming.
Very cool.
One thing that should be mentioned about the X10's MouseRemotes (included, apparently, in the DVDAnywhere and now the MP3Anywhere) is that the mouse remote driver software doesn't work with wheel mice.
I've got a Logitech MouseMan+, and if the software is installed as it's supposed to be, it will disable the wheel on your mouse. (The mouse remote works fine, however.)
Apparently, this is a long standing problem with X10 (check usenet for more info).
There's a way to hook the MouseMan on a spare serial port, but I haven't figured this out.
It's goofy shit, IMHO. X10 oughta just write the damn driver software. It's a cool product.
Um, that's what it's like growing up just about anywhere.
I mean, everyone thinks their town is the most boring place in the world. "There's nothing to do, man. There's nothing here." Or: "I'm getting out one day. I'm gonna blow this joint."
My point is that while that sort of sense is undeniably true -- I felt it myself growing up in small-town Illinois ("Man, there's nothing to *do* here...it's just flatland and cornfields...") -- Kevin Smith doesn't do much to make it any less cliched.
You've got to be kidding me. "Grow up in Jersey for a while?"
Very insightful. Thanks.
Kevin Smith? Bwahahahahahahaha.
Kevin Smith makes movies full of Generation-X angst. Phoney angst, I might add.
He's like Tarantino: the movie is about hipness and if you don't get it -- you lack it (hipness, that is) -- and, ha ha, the joke's on you.
Chasing Amy was a joke. Plot-wise, yeah, it was interesting: but story-wise? The characters were dudes, plain and simple. That, and the fact that any film with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are films to be feared.
But I know Smith has a huge following. A cult following. Like Tarantino. But when you cash in your hipness what's left? I mean, where's Tarantino now? (I'm serious: what's the next Tarantino project? Does anyone know?)
BWP had a great plot and even better story. The characters, yeah, were a little whiny -- all the nagging, the crying, the "you said this, no *you* said that" stuff -- but they worked. Ditto for PI -- a film which I thought was a bit indulgent but visually pretty damn cool.
Another great indie I just caught last night: "Niagra, Niagra." Bleak as hell, but interesting: real glimpse into what seemed like real lives. BWP was the same thing: a good glimpse. But Kevin Smith?
Bwahahahahahahahahah. A glimpse into one writer's half-hearted attempt at narcissism.