2) Fosse was Broadway's preeminent choreographer for twenty years. He had nothing to do with Lucas;
3) Fosse "one of the greatest masters of Cinema"? He was a Broadway guy, mainly, and, while he did choreograph some movies, most of them were plays first (Cabaret. etc.);
4) Which brings us back to. . . what in the world are you talking about?
I am part of the original Star Wars Generation - I was eight when the first one came out, and I saw it in the theaters eleven times. I saw Empire and Return multiple times as well. I had Star Wars figures. I went as Luke Skywalker for Halloween, blah blah blah.
I was excited for A New Hope, and went to see it at the Ziegfeld Theater in NYC when it premiered. I left the movie disappointed and aghast - horrible writing, terrible directing and a movie which bored me silly. My problem with Star Wars is not Star Wars but George Lucas himself, and the huge drop in quality he has overseen. It seems that without Leigh Bracket and Irvin Kershner to help him, Lucas is incapable of rising above rank melodrama in the new movies. The is doubly confusing to me, as Lucas did great things with the first movie, American Graffiti and THX1138.
I don't know when Lucas lost it (I think it was when he changed the Greedo/Solo scene for the re-release of the original trilogy) but I have no problem saying the emperor has no clothes. I will always enjoy the first three movie, but the last two have been complete crap.
I really don"t care how sloppy your die cuts are. I said die cuts for machinery - like key pads not business cards and wedding invitations.
Done them with Illustrator. Never had a complaint.
You don't honestly use those cheesy liquify tools?
When your retouching things like the cover of Maxim or the Victoria's Secret catalog, the art directors (for reasons I don't understand) always want the models' hands and feet to be smaller. The liquefy tools do this seamlessly.
There are not "millions and millions of designers" in the known universe.
Of course there are. There are millions in the U.S., millions in Europe, Russia, Asia, etc. I just finished a project for a bunch of Russian and Ukrainian designers.
I'm not Adobe fanboy - check my comments for one on just why Adobe sucks -but your comments were, to me, uninformed.
I teach media design and find that Photoshop has offered me nothing of substance since version 4
Liquefy tools? Much better type handling? Much better color matching? New filters? Real vector layers? Soft proofing? Hello?
The color rendition is NOT terrifically accurate.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rendition". Do you mean how the colors render on your monitor? Do you mean your color profiles? In both cases the problem is you and not the software. Photoshop has about the best color management engine out there.
Adobe stuck their foot in it big time and thousands of printers went balistic two years ago when they changed things a bit.
I have no ideas what you're talking about.
Illustrator is overshadowed by Corel Draw when it comes to accuracy. In order to impose, you can use Corel, but not Illustrator. At all. Nada, zip zero. It's unusable for flexography, and you can't do die cuts for any kind of machinery or casting with it.
The fact that you teach design is clear to me, as you don't know the first thing about production. I have lost track of the die cuts I have made with Illustrator. You can make die cuts with fucking Quark if you need to. Man, I would hate to be one of your students.
A design professional has to use what works best. That's life. I don't think that a few thousand designers should rule the world.
Then it's a good thing millions and millions of designers choose Photoshop.
Remember, designers have an average income like first year teachers.
I don't know where you live, but here (NYC) good designers make $600+ a day and high level retouchers make $150/hr.
Back on the topic: although people seem to be concentrating on UI issues, GIMP is nowhere near feature-complete with respect to Photoshop.
Don't confuse mocking the sillier conventions of sci fi with employing them in earnest because you don't know any better.
Don't hesitate to use ad homenim attacks when you can't make a cogent argument.
Good. Now that we've gotten the dick-swinging out of the way, we can move on.
I know that criticizing DS9 is a dangerous thing to do in the geek world - it's like calling Steve Jobs a jerk at Macworld, and I say that as a Mac user. However, I stand by my assertion that, if one is looking at DS9 (or TNG, etc.) as a TV show rather than as a Star Trek show (with all the worship that implies) it is a terrible show: the characters were one dimensional at best, the dialog was gratingly bad and every show I saw seemed to have the same plot. The show was popular because it managed to hit all of the tropes required to make it a Star Trek show, but these tropes are referrent to the Star Trek world alone and have no real value outside of it.
It is the same with any other genre-based fiction: there are certain things which must happen in a romance novel, or in a western movie, and so long as those things happen the work will be accepted by a large percentage of the viewing/reading population. This goes along with a theory I have (one I am loathe to present, as it will probably result in me losing all karma) that the absolute worst thing to happen to Star Trek was the ghettoization of the series by its rabid fans. Rather than be judged as a work of drama, the series is judges by how well is fits into the "Star Trek universe," a universe bounded not by the needs of making a good series or show but by the strictures of the needs of Star Trek fans to have something to identify with and call their own.
For me, one of the most basic ways this can be seen is the insistence by some that the Star Trek world present 1) a coherent timeline and 2) that all of its "science" be explainable. The original series was written without any of these restrictions - the fan base did not exist. As a result, the original series had the freedom to come up with plots, characters and ideas which best suited the dramatic aspects of the show. It wasn't necessary to have the a fictional timeline which passed any sort of logical muster - the writers had complete freedom. Any modern series, however, faces considerable fan pressure to conform to the series timeline - a timeline which is going to be inconsistent no matter what - and this is a pressure which considerably limits the freedom of the writers.
The demand that the series technology be explainable is a similar restriction, and one which really annoyed me. The absolute worst thing about TNG, to me, was the reliance on techno-babble as a deus ex machina: reached an untenable plot point? Have Gordi spout something about reversing the tachyon polarity and bingo! problem solved. Bad. Writing.
Lest it sound like I am saying that the fans ruined Star Trek, let me make it clear that the blame lies firmly on Roddenberry and Berman et al. It was Roddenberry's odd decision that, by the time TNG came around, humans were no longer prey to their emotions, giving us a ship full of one-dimensional autoanimatrons. It is Berman and his crew who seem to have completely abandoned creating a show with any dramatic tension or creativity, being instead content to drag the needle over the same worn grooves over and over. Rather than deliver a good sci-fi show, they seem set on delivering a good Star Trek(TM) show, locking themselves into an ever-tightening cycle of what is acceptable to the fan base.
I wish Star Trek was better. I was raised on the original series and still love it. I have been pleasantly surprised by Enterprise, which has given us real characters and some actual dramatic tension. And I have watched Enterprise get ravaged by some die hard fans who seem to want a show which plays by the accumulated Star Trek rules (Archer couldn't have done that! Everyone knows that hand phasers weren't gray until star date.
Andromeda's best point, imo, was that it didn't take itself seriously. It never pretended to be anything other than a cheesy science fiction show, and had a lot of fun with some of the sillier conventions of sci fi. To me, it was the perfect antidote to shows like DS9, which seemed to be so concerned with being "serious" sci fi they forgot about things like character, dialog or plot.
You are absolutely right. Purebread racing engines can produce tremendous bhp/Liter ratios such as that BMW one. This thread, though, is refering to mass produced, sand cast block based engines, which just don't have the strength to be reliable at the aformentioned power levels.
The engine blocks of the M12/13s (the F1 engines in question) were actually production blocks. BMW preferred blocks which had about 60,000 miles on them as properly "broken in". Aside from that, you're right. However, this thread gave me the ability to trot out a bit of trivia I've had running around my head for years.
You can make 1200bhp out of that 1.6L with enough money. The problem is that is will only last a few seconds.
In the late 80s/early 90s, BWM was gettng up to 1560 horsepower out of their Formula 1 engine, a 1.5 liter inline 4. 1560 was the maximum figure, but the engine regularly lasted for 2 hours producing 1000+ horsepower. De-tuned for endurance racing, they put out 600 horsepower for up to 24 hours at a time without a break.
It's the car equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever
on
The Bugatti Veyron
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's shipping now!
No, wait. . . now!
No, really, now! And it will have a jillion horsepower and go a bazillion miles an hour!
As to the question of "are there better cars out there?" the answer is yes: any one of them you can actually drive.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. Given Lucas' penchant for fucking things up, I am nervous.
No. God damn that's an annoying site. Where is the trailer?
THX 1138: The Special Expanded Director's Cut, with better special effects and a new ending I will be very happy.
Yep. My bad.
He has, in fact, directed two very good movies: American Graffiti and THX1138. Maybe those were the only two he had in him.
Quite a normal computer industry phenomenon, and nothing to worry about.
I'm typing this on a dual 1.8 G5. Nice machine.
We're talking about George Lucas.
1) It's Bob Fosse;
2) Fosse was Broadway's preeminent choreographer for twenty years. He had nothing to do with Lucas;
3) Fosse "one of the greatest masters of Cinema"? He was a Broadway guy, mainly, and, while he did choreograph some movies, most of them were plays first (Cabaret. etc.);
4) Which brings us back to. . . what in the world are you talking about?
I was excited for A New Hope, and went to see it at the Ziegfeld Theater in NYC when it premiered. I left the movie disappointed and aghast - horrible writing, terrible directing and a movie which bored me silly. My problem with Star Wars is not Star Wars but George Lucas himself, and the huge drop in quality he has overseen. It seems that without Leigh Bracket and Irvin Kershner to help him, Lucas is incapable of rising above rank melodrama in the new movies. The is doubly confusing to me, as Lucas did great things with the first movie, American Graffiti and THX1138.
I don't know when Lucas lost it (I think it was when he changed the Greedo/Solo scene for the re-release of the original trilogy) but I have no problem saying the emperor has no clothes. I will always enjoy the first three movie, but the last two have been complete crap.
The Birth of a Migraine.
Might as well visit the site.
Fucking idiots. They deserve whatever they get,.
Preach it, brother!
I was. Worked flawlessly since 10.1.
PEBKAC.
"Yeah, IBM? Yeah. . . Apple told me there was a four week wait for my G5. Could ya crank out a couple for me? Thanks. Hugs to all. . ."
Done them with Illustrator. Never had a complaint.
When your retouching things like the cover of Maxim or the Victoria's Secret catalog, the art directors (for reasons I don't understand) always want the models' hands and feet to be smaller. The liquefy tools do this seamlessly.
Of course there are. There are millions in the U.S., millions in Europe, Russia, Asia, etc. I just finished a project for a bunch of Russian and Ukrainian designers.
I'm not Adobe fanboy - check my comments for one on just why Adobe sucks -but your comments were, to me, uninformed.
Liquefy tools? Much better type handling? Much better color matching? New filters? Real vector layers? Soft proofing? Hello?
I'm not sure what you mean by "rendition". Do you mean how the colors render on your monitor? Do you mean your color profiles? In both cases the problem is you and not the software. Photoshop has about the best color management engine out there.
I have no ideas what you're talking about.
The fact that you teach design is clear to me, as you don't know the first thing about production. I have lost track of the die cuts I have made with Illustrator. You can make die cuts with fucking Quark if you need to. Man, I would hate to be one of your students.
Then it's a good thing millions and millions of designers choose Photoshop.
I don't know where you live, but here (NYC) good designers make $600+ a day and high level retouchers make $150/hr.
Back on the topic: although people seem to be concentrating on UI issues, GIMP is nowhere near feature-complete with respect to Photoshop.
The next version of IBMs POWER architecture (POWER 6) is multicore. This is the chip the next processors used by Apple will be based on (G6?).
Don't hesitate to use ad homenim attacks when you can't make a cogent argument.
Good. Now that we've gotten the dick-swinging out of the way, we can move on.
I know that criticizing DS9 is a dangerous thing to do in the geek world - it's like calling Steve Jobs a jerk at Macworld, and I say that as a Mac user. However, I stand by my assertion that, if one is looking at DS9 (or TNG, etc.) as a TV show rather than as a Star Trek show (with all the worship that implies) it is a terrible show: the characters were one dimensional at best, the dialog was gratingly bad and every show I saw seemed to have the same plot. The show was popular because it managed to hit all of the tropes required to make it a Star Trek show, but these tropes are referrent to the Star Trek world alone and have no real value outside of it.
It is the same with any other genre-based fiction: there are certain things which must happen in a romance novel, or in a western movie, and so long as those things happen the work will be accepted by a large percentage of the viewing/reading population. This goes along with a theory I have (one I am loathe to present, as it will probably result in me losing all karma) that the absolute worst thing to happen to Star Trek was the ghettoization of the series by its rabid fans. Rather than be judged as a work of drama, the series is judges by how well is fits into the "Star Trek universe," a universe bounded not by the needs of making a good series or show but by the strictures of the needs of Star Trek fans to have something to identify with and call their own.
For me, one of the most basic ways this can be seen is the insistence by some that the Star Trek world present 1) a coherent timeline and 2) that all of its "science" be explainable. The original series was written without any of these restrictions - the fan base did not exist. As a result, the original series had the freedom to come up with plots, characters and ideas which best suited the dramatic aspects of the show. It wasn't necessary to have the a fictional timeline which passed any sort of logical muster - the writers had complete freedom. Any modern series, however, faces considerable fan pressure to conform to the series timeline - a timeline which is going to be inconsistent no matter what - and this is a pressure which considerably limits the freedom of the writers.
The demand that the series technology be explainable is a similar restriction, and one which really annoyed me. The absolute worst thing about TNG, to me, was the reliance on techno-babble as a deus ex machina: reached an untenable plot point? Have Gordi spout something about reversing the tachyon polarity and bingo! problem solved. Bad. Writing.
Lest it sound like I am saying that the fans ruined Star Trek, let me make it clear that the blame lies firmly on Roddenberry and Berman et al. It was Roddenberry's odd decision that, by the time TNG came around, humans were no longer prey to their emotions, giving us a ship full of one-dimensional autoanimatrons. It is Berman and his crew who seem to have completely abandoned creating a show with any dramatic tension or creativity, being instead content to drag the needle over the same worn grooves over and over. Rather than deliver a good sci-fi show, they seem set on delivering a good Star Trek(TM) show, locking themselves into an ever-tightening cycle of what is acceptable to the fan base.
I wish Star Trek was better. I was raised on the original series and still love it. I have been pleasantly surprised by Enterprise, which has given us real characters and some actual dramatic tension. And I have watched Enterprise get ravaged by some die hard fans who seem to want a show which plays by the accumulated Star Trek rules (Archer couldn't have done that! Everyone knows that hand phasers weren't gray until star date.
Andromeda's best point, imo, was that it didn't take itself seriously. It never pretended to be anything other than a cheesy science fiction show, and had a lot of fun with some of the sillier conventions of sci fi. To me, it was the perfect antidote to shows like DS9, which seemed to be so concerned with being "serious" sci fi they forgot about things like character, dialog or plot.
The engine blocks of the M12/13s (the F1 engines in question) were actually production blocks. BMW preferred blocks which had about 60,000 miles on them as properly "broken in". Aside from that, you're right. However, this thread gave me the ability to trot out a bit of trivia I've had running around my head for years.
No, wait. . . now!
No, really, now! And it will have a jillion horsepower and go a bazillion miles an hour!
As to the question of "are there better cars out there?" the answer is yes: any one of them you can actually drive.
I mean, like, wow. That's an impressive bit of model building, fer shur.
Store your CDs in a cool, dry place which has a constant temperature, and if it's dark, all the better.