Though I think the bullet time was part of what made it suck. They used that shit in every goddamn fight scene, of which there were at least a dozen, nearly all of them the same. It goes from "neat special effect" to "okay, we know you can fucking do that effect, now show something else already."
So it ended up basically being one of those plotless martial arts movies, only Keanu Reaves can't do wire-fu worth a damn. Go watch a Jackie Chan movie or something instead.
To most people, "Mozilla" is just the open-source version of Netscape's browser. When Phoenix is released in a non-alpha version, it'll be the browser, so it'll be "Mozilla." The fact that the internal framework has changed doesn't really matter.
Yes, I realize that high-end "professional" graphics cards have supported OpenGL well for a while now, and will likely continue to do so into the near future. I was referring to consumer graphics cards; the sorts you get from nVidia, not sgi. Without Carmack, those would be unlikely to be putting much emphasis on OpenGL right now, and so OpenGL would be pretty much confined to non-game users.
no, you'd be worse off
on
Mighty Amazon
·
· Score: 1
Used book stores take considerably more profit from you; they generally buy at around 30-50% of the price they hope to be able to resell the book for (used CD stores are even worse, usually paying more like 15-30%). As for selling it yourself, you'll be lucky to get someone to buy any given book for $1 at a yard sale, while selling on Amazon (or ebay, or half.com, or whatever) makes it more likely that someone who actually wants your book and might be willing to pay a reasonable price for it will see it.
This actually hurts niche markets *less*
on
Mighty Amazon
·
· Score: 1
It's the big best-sellers that you see hundreds of copies of for sale on ebay/amazon/etc.; niche stuff is much harder to find used, because when people buy it it's 'cause they want to keep it. I'm personally more familiar with the used market for music CDs, which works very strongly in this way -- if you want a copy of a Britney Spears album, you can find dozens of them for $1-$3 apiece, because lots of people bought it when it was hot and now are trying to get rid of it. If, on the other hand, you want a copy of an album by a niche band, it's hard to find used stuff at all, and when you do it's in the $8-$12 range, not much cheaper than buying it new (I personally listen mostly to EBM/industrial, which is somewhat of a niche genre, and this holds true for nearly all bands in the genre, even relatively popular ones like Wumpscut and Skinny Puppy).
Unless Linux suddenly got a bunch of new latest-generation games, the issue of Linux drivers is a non-issue. 99% of gamers use Windows to play games, even those who use Linux for everything else (hell, CmdrTaco even reboots to Windows to play games).
As much as I'd like that to happen, it doesn't seem very likely to happen anytime soon. Really, John Carmack singlehandedly keeps OpenGL alive; if he didn't have such a strong preference for it, DirectX would have just about all the major games out there and hardware support would be significantly worse.
It doesn't seem that the only complaint is the lack of credits; there seems to be additional licensing required. That is, he'd still be getting sued even if he had properly cited the origin of the sample but hadn't paid royalties or otherwise cleared it.
If you're excerpting a very small part of another work and using it in a work that is substantially of your own creation, isn't that the point of fair use? Isn't this somewhat similar to quoting a line from a book in your own book?
All old movies are actually shot in 4:3 and intended to be shown that way, since 16:9 is a later format (introduced to keep people from watching movies on their TVs instead of paying to see them in the theater). Also, Kubrick (among others) shot in the full 4:3 and used that cut for the TV releases, since he didn't like the way pan-and-scan mangled 16:9 cuts. So you're actually getting more of the movie with the 4:3. Sure, the 16:9 version's cut is overseen by the director, but it's still a cut-down version of the 4:3 in some cases.
All pre-1953 movies were shot in 4:3 (as well as some later ones, notably Kubrick's stuff). Thus you either have to do a vertical version of "pan-and-scan" to show Gone With the Wind in 16:9, or you need vertical black bars.
All pre-1953 movies, and many well-known later ones (most of Kubrick's stuff, for example) were shot in 4:3. Then they cut out about a third of the frame to chop it down to 16:9 for the widescreen release. So when you watch the original 4:3 version, you're actually seeing what the cinematographer intended.
Many movies are shot in 4:3, and then parts of the top and bottom are cut off for the theatre release. So the TV (4:3) version is the entire original, whereas the widescreen (16:9) version is essentially a vertical version of pan-and-scan. This is true of all pre-1953 movies, and funny you should mention Kubrick, because that's how he filmed almost all his films.
So let me ask you with the wide-screen TV the same question then: how the hell are you supposed to watch Kubrick on a format other than they shot in and not walk away with (almost literally) half the picture?
The article you linked to gives me the headline "N Korea quits nuclear treaty: Text." The only usage of DPRK is in the body of the article, which is a translation of an official North Korean press release (and thus obviously uses their preferred terminology).
It's very likely that any spam labeled as "from AOL" has forged headers. In the past few years they've actually done a very admiral job drastically cutting the amount of spam originating from their servers (and even tracking down and suing spammers originating on other servers).
This is one area I'm glad the US is behind in. There's even billboard ads starting to appear in Europe which try 2 sell u stuff in that terrible style of SMS messaging that makes AOL-speak look positively literary.
A huge percentage of Canada's population lives in the four largest cities. You have to go to more like 10 cities in the US to get a large percentage of the population, and even then it's far less. Sure, Canada's bigger, but nobody lives in most of it.
One of the major sources of quality degradation in transcoding is re-quantization. Almost all (all?) lossy compression algorithms do some sort of quantization, whether it be in the frequency or time domain, to save space where it seems possible; for example, taking a 16-bit quantity and storing it in 12 bits (2^16 gets mapped to 2^12, 0 gets mapped to 0, and everything in between gets rounded to its nearest corresponding 12-bit value). Now say you transcode, and the new algorithm uses 10 bits on the same quantity. Now you have 16->12->16->10, which is really horrible.
Now if you could determine which quantities were quantized in what way, you could try to minimize these effects; 16->12->16->12 shouldn't really introduce any additional errors, for example. But your resulting file will still be lower-quality than a WAV->xxx encode, since you're restricting the codec's options. In, say, an MP3->AAC transcoding, you'd be forcing AAC to use quantization granularities tuned for MP3, not allowing it to use what it determines as optimal in the context of its AAC encoding.
A signals-processing attempt to measure audio quality isn't useful in general, and especially when dealing with lossy codecs. The various measured distortion values aren't really interesting -- the only relevant result is audio quality. As such, the only interesting tests are blind listening tests.
The movie's epistemological questioning is exactly in the tradition of western philosophical skepticism, dating back to Descartes. It does bear some resemblance to things seen in eastern philosophy, but the resemblance is much less striking. The resemblance to Western skepticism, on the other hand, looks like they could've just borrowed it from the cliffnotes of some philosophy textbooks. "Brain in a vat" skepticism has been a common thought experiment in western philosophy for decades.
He wrote a large portion of the original gcc, which you likely have used on occasion, and either primarily wrote or contributed to a huge percentage of the software and utilities you use on a day-to-day basis.
Or to take a very simple example, the following appears in the manpage for 'ls' on Debian and many other Linux distributions:
AUTHOR
Written by Richard Stallman and David MacKenzie.
If I currently have two windows open in Mozilla, and one of them has Javascript that goes into an infinite loop, the correct behavior is not for the entire program to crash, taking both windows down with it.
An average non-techie may not on their own switch, but given the choice more may now choose Mozilla. I used to have a lot of trouble convincing people to even try out Mozilla. Now I just tell them it blocks popup ads and they're more than willing to try it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I think the bullet time was part of what made it suck. They used that shit in every goddamn fight scene, of which there were at least a dozen, nearly all of them the same. It goes from "neat special effect" to "okay, we know you can fucking do that effect, now show something else already."
So it ended up basically being one of those plotless martial arts movies, only Keanu Reaves can't do wire-fu worth a damn. Go watch a Jackie Chan movie or something instead.
To most people, "Mozilla" is just the open-source version of Netscape's browser. When Phoenix is released in a non-alpha version, it'll be the browser, so it'll be "Mozilla." The fact that the internal framework has changed doesn't really matter.
Yes, I realize that high-end "professional" graphics cards have supported OpenGL well for a while now, and will likely continue to do so into the near future. I was referring to consumer graphics cards; the sorts you get from nVidia, not sgi. Without Carmack, those would be unlikely to be putting much emphasis on OpenGL right now, and so OpenGL would be pretty much confined to non-game users.
Used book stores take considerably more profit from you; they generally buy at around 30-50% of the price they hope to be able to resell the book for (used CD stores are even worse, usually paying more like 15-30%). As for selling it yourself, you'll be lucky to get someone to buy any given book for $1 at a yard sale, while selling on Amazon (or ebay, or half.com, or whatever) makes it more likely that someone who actually wants your book and might be willing to pay a reasonable price for it will see it.
It's the big best-sellers that you see hundreds of copies of for sale on ebay/amazon/etc.; niche stuff is much harder to find used, because when people buy it it's 'cause they want to keep it. I'm personally more familiar with the used market for music CDs, which works very strongly in this way -- if you want a copy of a Britney Spears album, you can find dozens of them for $1-$3 apiece, because lots of people bought it when it was hot and now are trying to get rid of it. If, on the other hand, you want a copy of an album by a niche band, it's hard to find used stuff at all, and when you do it's in the $8-$12 range, not much cheaper than buying it new (I personally listen mostly to EBM/industrial, which is somewhat of a niche genre, and this holds true for nearly all bands in the genre, even relatively popular ones like Wumpscut and Skinny Puppy).
Unless Linux suddenly got a bunch of new latest-generation games, the issue of Linux drivers is a non-issue. 99% of gamers use Windows to play games, even those who use Linux for everything else (hell, CmdrTaco even reboots to Windows to play games).
As much as I'd like that to happen, it doesn't seem very likely to happen anytime soon. Really, John Carmack singlehandedly keeps OpenGL alive; if he didn't have such a strong preference for it, DirectX would have just about all the major games out there and hardware support would be significantly worse.
[n/t]
It doesn't seem that the only complaint is the lack of credits; there seems to be additional licensing required. That is, he'd still be getting sued even if he had properly cited the origin of the sample but hadn't paid royalties or otherwise cleared it.
If you're excerpting a very small part of another work and using it in a work that is substantially of your own creation, isn't that the point of fair use? Isn't this somewhat similar to quoting a line from a book in your own book?
All old movies are actually shot in 4:3 and intended to be shown that way, since 16:9 is a later format (introduced to keep people from watching movies on their TVs instead of paying to see them in the theater). Also, Kubrick (among others) shot in the full 4:3 and used that cut for the TV releases, since he didn't like the way pan-and-scan mangled 16:9 cuts. So you're actually getting more of the movie with the 4:3. Sure, the 16:9 version's cut is overseen by the director, but it's still a cut-down version of the 4:3 in some cases.
All pre-1953 movies were shot in 4:3 (as well as some later ones, notably Kubrick's stuff). Thus you either have to do a vertical version of "pan-and-scan" to show Gone With the Wind in 16:9, or you need vertical black bars.
All pre-1953 movies, and many well-known later ones (most of Kubrick's stuff, for example) were shot in 4:3. Then they cut out about a third of the frame to chop it down to 16:9 for the widescreen release. So when you watch the original 4:3 version, you're actually seeing what the cinematographer intended.
Many movies are shot in 4:3, and then parts of the top and bottom are cut off for the theatre release. So the TV (4:3) version is the entire original, whereas the widescreen (16:9) version is essentially a vertical version of pan-and-scan. This is true of all pre-1953 movies, and funny you should mention Kubrick, because that's how he filmed almost all his films.
So let me ask you with the wide-screen TV the same question then: how the hell are you supposed to watch Kubrick on a format other than they shot in and not walk away with (almost literally) half the picture?
The article you linked to gives me the headline "N Korea quits nuclear treaty: Text." The only usage of DPRK is in the body of the article, which is a translation of an official North Korean press release (and thus obviously uses their preferred terminology).
Every news source outside of the US refers to it as such (even our English speaking breatheren in Canada and Britan).
The BBC doesn't.
It's very likely that any spam labeled as "from AOL" has forged headers. In the past few years they've actually done a very admiral job drastically cutting the amount of spam originating from their servers (and even tracking down and suing spammers originating on other servers).
This is one area I'm glad the US is behind in. There's even billboard ads starting to appear in Europe which try 2 sell u stuff in that terrible style of SMS messaging that makes AOL-speak look positively literary.
A huge percentage of Canada's population lives in the four largest cities. You have to go to more like 10 cities in the US to get a large percentage of the population, and even then it's far less. Sure, Canada's bigger, but nobody lives in most of it.
One of the major sources of quality degradation in transcoding is re-quantization. Almost all (all?) lossy compression algorithms do some sort of quantization, whether it be in the frequency or time domain, to save space where it seems possible; for example, taking a 16-bit quantity and storing it in 12 bits (2^16 gets mapped to 2^12, 0 gets mapped to 0, and everything in between gets rounded to its nearest corresponding 12-bit value). Now say you transcode, and the new algorithm uses 10 bits on the same quantity. Now you have 16->12->16->10, which is really horrible.
Now if you could determine which quantities were quantized in what way, you could try to minimize these effects; 16->12->16->12 shouldn't really introduce any additional errors, for example. But your resulting file will still be lower-quality than a WAV->xxx encode, since you're restricting the codec's options. In, say, an MP3->AAC transcoding, you'd be forcing AAC to use quantization granularities tuned for MP3, not allowing it to use what it determines as optimal in the context of its AAC encoding.
A signals-processing attempt to measure audio quality isn't useful in general, and especially when dealing with lossy codecs. The various measured distortion values aren't really interesting -- the only relevant result is audio quality. As such, the only interesting tests are blind listening tests.
The movie's epistemological questioning is exactly in the tradition of western philosophical skepticism, dating back to Descartes. It does bear some resemblance to things seen in eastern philosophy, but the resemblance is much less striking. The resemblance to Western skepticism, on the other hand, looks like they could've just borrowed it from the cliffnotes of some philosophy textbooks. "Brain in a vat" skepticism has been a common thought experiment in western philosophy for decades.
He wrote a large portion of the original gcc, which you likely have used on occasion, and either primarily wrote or contributed to a huge percentage of the software and utilities you use on a day-to-day basis.
Or to take a very simple example, the following appears in the manpage for 'ls' on Debian and many other Linux distributions:
AUTHOR
Written by Richard Stallman and David MacKenzie.
If I currently have two windows open in Mozilla, and one of them has Javascript that goes into an infinite loop, the correct behavior is not for the entire program to crash, taking both windows down with it.
An average non-techie may not on their own switch, but given the choice more may now choose Mozilla. I used to have a lot of trouble convincing people to even try out Mozilla. Now I just tell them it blocks popup ads and they're more than willing to try it out.