This snippets were rotoscoped in a program typically dupped Rotoshop ( a combination of rotoscope and photoshop ) by Bob Sabiston at Flat Black Films. You can find other examples of this type of animation. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak at the Wexner Center in Columbus, Ohio in 2001, IIRC. He's a programmer, and his preferred platform is the Mac.
During the talk, people asked when he was going to release the program. He basic answer was he didn't want to become involed in anything that would take him away from programming -- starting a business, licensing, etc. I asked him about releasing it open source, and he said something to the effect of "I know it works, I'm just not sure how".
In any case, I just checked on the studio's website, and it appears that the program will be released in June, 2006. You can put yourself on an email list to be notified of its release.
Interesting... but maybe not so well thought out. What exactly do you mean by reality? What does it mean for seomthing to be real? Is 'make believe' real? Are thoughts real? Are make believe thoughts real? Are thoughts about reality real? What is the difference between real and make believe thoughts? Is mysticism inside the human mind part of reality? What is a rule?
A few questions -- isn't the definition of 'computing device' a turing machine? As such, isn't it then true that we don't even have a theoretical model for a 'natural mind' device?
I too believe that hard AI is possible, and that the mind is an epiphenomenon of certain configurations of matter, but I'm not sure about the free will bit.
If you read Stallman's biography, you'll realize that OSS has been around longer than commercial software. Time was, source code was considered to be part of buying hardware. Vendors didn't care what you did with it to get their hardware working.
Then, in the 80s, Stallman noticed that one company refused to release the source code for IIRC a printer driver. Stallman, visionary that he is, forsaw the consequences of this type of thinking and delveoped the GPL and the free software movement.
You'll remember that Gates' first public 'postings' was in a computer magazine, with an essay explaining why programmers should charge for their work. Back then, the mainstream idea was that software is free, and sharing it is not wrong. You paid for the hardware already, you should be entitled to copies of the software. Gates' radical argument was that people should pay for code alone.
So, you are in fact bass-ackwards. Commercial software came about the same time Stallman began work on the GPL. Both of these were a response to a technology world where sharing source code was not considered to be wrong or illegal in any way by the majority of computer users, but businesses were starting to limit the licensing of their software.
"True integration requires open, flexible standards for content and inter-application communications. Nobody has really figured out how to do that yet, least of all Microsoft and Apple."
Does anyone know of work towards a totally stylus based GUI? Right now everything in the GUI world seems based around pointing and clicking. However, gestures seem a natural for a transfer to a pen-based GUI.
The point that my science teacher made is that for him, Christianity was a faith, not a science. There's more to life than knowing things.
Re:I know this isn't a book review, but...
on
100 Years of Einstein
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As I was taught by my high school Christan Creationist science/astronomy teacher (who was a great science teacher, not a whacko in any respect) a hypothesis must do two things in order to be considered a theory: 1. explain the past and 2. make predictions.
As I understand, no one has though up any predictions based on string 'theory'. Since we have no predictions, we have no experiments. If we have no experiments, we have no falsification. If we have no falsification, we do not have science.
As it stands, string theory holds no more scientific weight than the idea that we live in the matrix, or that reality is the dream of Indra. All of these can reasonably explain the past. However, once we have a prediction that can potientially be discredited through an experiment, then we have science. Currently , string theory, like the Matrix or Indra's dream, make no falsifiable prediction.
A few years ago I had a metallic paint pen. If you burnt the paper that had markings from this pen on it, the ink would glow brightly for a brief time before going out. It was a neat effect, glowing words.
Now I'm trying to re-create this effect for a film project, and I've had no luck. I've bought out the pen section at staples, tried various metallic paint pens, and none of them do this.
The idea is to have the credits written on a piece of paper, totally unlit, so all you see is darkness. As the flame creeps across the page, the letters will glow as the flame hits them. How could I do this?
A few months ago, I was at my grandpa's place, and my cousin's kid (age ~9) asked grandpa if he would turn on the 'old computer' so she could use it. She was referring to the typewriter.
"But she has recently gotten Jake Gyllenhall's character from Donnie Darko"
How hard is that? There are several scenes in the movie where he's with a psych[ologist|iatrist], and one where she even diagnoses him for his parents. I guess you could say that, as the audience, we see things that he may not tell his shrink. On the other hand, according to the movie, he clearly has no mental problems whatsoever; he's just the animated dead, gotten off of God's uh, line, and he has to get reality back in order. See? Simple.
When they depicted the armies in LOTR, I wonder if they didn't add extra numbers for dramatic purposes. A friend and I had a debate about the actual number of Sauron's forces depicted in front of his tower as he addresses them.
I emailed Weta asking if they stuck to Tolkien's numbers, but I got a generic reply saying how the film was made with Massive.
Slashdot Mirror
During the talk, people asked when he was going to release the program. He basic answer was he didn't want to become involed in anything that would take him away from programming -- starting a business, licensing, etc. I asked him about releasing it open source, and he said something to the effect of "I know it works, I'm just not sure how".
In any case, I just checked on the studio's website, and it appears that the program will be released in June, 2006. You can put yourself on an email list to be notified of its release.
It seems you don't realize that these images are rotoscoped, which means that they are drawings traced over live action footage.
So, where Pythagoras said numbers are the ultimate reality, you would say some kind of language is the ultimate reality?
Also, why do you choose the term 'fabric'?
I too believe that hard AI is possible, and that the mind is an epiphenomenon of certain configurations of matter, but I'm not sure about the free will bit.
Then, in the 80s, Stallman noticed that one company refused to release the source code for IIRC a printer driver. Stallman, visionary that he is, forsaw the consequences of this type of thinking and delveoped the GPL and the free software movement.
You'll remember that Gates' first public 'postings' was in a computer magazine, with an essay explaining why programmers should charge for their work. Back then, the mainstream idea was that software is free, and sharing it is not wrong. You paid for the hardware already, you should be entitled to copies of the software. Gates' radical argument was that people should pay for code alone.
So, you are in fact bass-ackwards. Commercial software came about the same time Stallman began work on the GPL. Both of these were a response to a technology world where sharing source code was not considered to be wrong or illegal in any way by the majority of computer users, but businesses were starting to limit the licensing of their software.
How about any email application in the world?
Does anyone know of work towards a totally stylus based GUI? Right now everything in the GUI world seems based around pointing and clicking. However, gestures seem a natural for a transfer to a pen-based GUI.
"Group members act as "linguistic sounding boards," said John Shibley, co-compiler of the list."
John Shibley has just informed us that he is not a linguist.
Creationism is a faith. It is about not asking questions.
Dude, so it worked?
The point that my science teacher made is that for him, Christianity was a faith, not a science. There's more to life than knowing things.
As I understand, no one has though up any predictions based on string 'theory'. Since we have no predictions, we have no experiments. If we have no experiments, we have no falsification. If we have no falsification, we do not have science.
As it stands, string theory holds no more scientific weight than the idea that we live in the matrix, or that reality is the dream of Indra. All of these can reasonably explain the past. However, once we have a prediction that can potientially be discredited through an experiment, then we have science. Currently , string theory, like the Matrix or Indra's dream, make no falsifiable prediction.
Um, sure, is your email ac@slashdot.org?
A few years ago I had a metallic paint pen. If you burnt the paper that had markings from this pen on it, the ink would glow brightly for a brief time before going out. It was a neat effect, glowing words.
Now I'm trying to re-create this effect for a film project, and I've had no luck. I've bought out the pen section at staples, tried various metallic paint pens, and none of them do this.
The idea is to have the credits written on a piece of paper, totally unlit, so all you see is darkness. As the flame creeps across the page, the letters will glow as the flame hits them. How could I do this?
Sorry, I meant contract.
A few months ago, I was at my grandpa's place, and my cousin's kid (age ~9) asked grandpa if he would turn on the 'old computer' so she could use it. She was referring to the typewriter.
EGM: What do those lasers look like?
Anthony: Stars.
Garret: Fireworks.
Bobby: Fireballs.
Parker: Psychedelic snowflakes.
Dillon: It's snowing up.
Rachel: This looks like a game out of Willy Wonka or something.
Bobby: It's like, "I'm Willy Wonka. I've created a new Star Wars."
Someone give these kids a contact!
This is all fine and good, but when do we get to see the Hardboiled trailer?
How hard is that? There are several scenes in the movie where he's with a psych[ologist|iatrist], and one where she even diagnoses him for his parents. I guess you could say that, as the audience, we see things that he may not tell his shrink. On the other hand, according to the movie, he clearly has no mental problems whatsoever; he's just the animated dead, gotten off of God's uh, line, and he has to get reality back in order. See? Simple.
Oh, is that what causes people to have a lifespan almost a millenium long?
Ree hee hee!
Ah, so they rendered Pelennor fields incorrectly.
I emailed Weta asking if they stuck to Tolkien's numbers, but I got a generic reply saying how the film was made with Massive.
How encrypted is this? Can military censors read this? What's to stop someone blabbing about deployments or positions?