Isn't that the same as using a large aperture when they could get away with a small one? Focus is frequently used in 2D movies - I don't see why it would be different in stereoscopic movies. Citizen Kane is famously in-focus, and it might well be the best movie ever, but many good movies make use of focus (Hitchcock, anyone?).
I'm definitely anti-pedant, anti-spelling and grammar Nazi... but who doesn't have a spell-checker in their browser? I guess they could be posting from a mobile...
I like Citizen Kane as much as the next guy, but there is definitely a place for movies with no redeeming artistic quality at all. I just watched "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" and enjoyed it unapologetically - even though it fails almost every critical test of a movie's quality. It was fun, and sometimes that's enough - kind of like amusement rides. Some people like big, fancy roller coasters with lots of loops and huge drops. Some people prefer classic coasters or even just merry-go-rounds. And some people will have fun even if it is just some poorly-maintained cornball funhouse thing at their local fair.
Jesus, I'm old but not THAT old... I remember when you could buy a stereo kit and assemble it yourself. Sure, you could just go out and buy an assembled stereo - but what fun was that? How would you learn how a stereo works by buying one from a shelf? What is more interesting to other people: an off-the-shelf stereo, or something you assembled yourself? One thing makes you more interesting and less ignorant. The other just makes you a regular consumer.
This seems to be in the same vein, only he actually designed parts of his own kit so it's actually cooler.
I'm old and crusty, but 20 years ago when I was in school they imaged the drives every night when the computer center closed. I remember the panic of having a bad floppy as they were about to close.
I didn't want to pretend that I had experience with every other device on the market. I did have experience with Palm. I liked it a lot at the time. I had played with Windows CE devices and found them to be more capable, but less usable than the Palm. Blackberry continues to have a sub-par internet experience, and it was very much lacking when the iPhone came out.
Today the situation is different. iPhone, Windows, and Android all have very similar internet browsers. All use the iPhone's basic interface. I think it is very fair to say that they copied. It is also fair to say that iPhone built upon what was already out there, and quite obviously copied a lot of stuff that already existed. I've had two iPhones, but I'm currently on Android. My next phone will be Windows if those are still available.
I don't really care who sues who - it is just corporate details that don't bother me in the least. Dispute resolution is what the courts are for, and we have all of these ridiculous IP laws that set up tons of artificial disputes. My hope is that the largest companies in the world eventually come around to see how stupid and expensive all of these IP laws are, and they use their considerable leverage to get them reformed. If these cases result in a monopoly of some sort, I will change my tune - but currently the smartphone market is simply amazing.
All of the Palms had grids of icons, but I have the Palm that was contemporary with the first iPhone, and the experience just can't be compared without writing a 7 page post. The web experience on the Palm was utterly atrocious. There was a convoluted way to get Opera Mini to run after installing some Java stuff on it, but you still had this terrible resistive touch screen and stylus-focused OS. There is a reason that Palm abandoned that software platform, and it had nothing to do with "cool".
Except that the Windows Phones were doing full web fine before there even was an iPhone.
If by "fine" you mean "painful". Windows (and all the other phones, for that matter) tried to either reformat the page for mobile or display the website like a desktop - there was nothing like the "pinch to zoom" experience of the first iPhone. The resistive screens and stylus oriented OS did not exactly help. I was late to the iPhone party, but I did have to admit that the web browsing experience was actually pretty amazing.
We leave lawmakers to decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior all the time.
Right, but these rules have to be applied uniformly. You can't change the laws based on the people involved. You can say, "no loud noise after 8PM". You can't say, "no anti-government protests after 8PM". You can say "no parking this side of street". You can't say "no parking for homosexuals this side of street".
If everything was regulated like slashdotters think "speech" is, then we would be walking around naked, raping children and killing women just because that would be an excercise of freedom.
You misunderstand their stance. No one can walk around naked. No one can rape. No one can murder. We don't apply these rules based on a criteria decided by a judge - we apply these rules uniformly. That is actually the reason why it is legal for women to walk around topless in New York City. They generally don't, but the courts ruled that if men can have their shirt off, so can women.
You can regulate speech, but it has to be all speech and it has to apply to all people. You can make people apply for a parade permit if they want to have a march - but then you cannot deny people the permit because you don't like their message or their race or their heritage.
if you blackmail a person and he commits suicide, you are going to jail. (by slashdot's definition of free speech, that should be unconstitutional)
Blackmail is illegal... what does that have to do with protected speech?
Can you show me an example of a culture where it is acceptable to mock people engaged in a funeral ritual? I'm fairly certain that's a universal no-no, but I would find a counter example very interesting. I'd wager it is even more universal than a taboo on killing children.
Indeed. The whole *point* of free speech protection is that speech is harmful. If it weren't harmful, no one would object to it and you wouldn't need to protect it. If speech weren't harmful, dictators wouldn't bother keeping media in check and governments wouldn't publish propaganda.
You are damn right, these Westboro nuts will certainly harm the victims' families - but the alternative is letting other people decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.
Pffft. We have a generator attached to our own oil well and refinery. We also have our own military to ensure a secure supply to the local creek for frack water. Our employees all parachute into work in case of local road disruption, and we have an entirely redundant site 30 miles underground, attached to a fully redundant fiber network.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that the same as using a large aperture when they could get away with a small one? Focus is frequently used in 2D movies - I don't see why it would be different in stereoscopic movies. Citizen Kane is famously in-focus, and it might well be the best movie ever, but many good movies make use of focus (Hitchcock, anyone?).
I'm definitely anti-pedant, anti-spelling and grammar Nazi... but who doesn't have a spell-checker in their browser? I guess they could be posting from a mobile...
I like Citizen Kane as much as the next guy, but there is definitely a place for movies with no redeeming artistic quality at all. I just watched "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" and enjoyed it unapologetically - even though it fails almost every critical test of a movie's quality. It was fun, and sometimes that's enough - kind of like amusement rides. Some people like big, fancy roller coasters with lots of loops and huge drops. Some people prefer classic coasters or even just merry-go-rounds. And some people will have fun even if it is just some poorly-maintained cornball funhouse thing at their local fair.
George Lucas has actually been pretty tolerant of things like fan edits. I suspect that Disney will be a bit more protective.
Jesus, I'm old but not THAT old... I remember when you could buy a stereo kit and assemble it yourself. Sure, you could just go out and buy an assembled stereo - but what fun was that? How would you learn how a stereo works by buying one from a shelf? What is more interesting to other people: an off-the-shelf stereo, or something you assembled yourself? One thing makes you more interesting and less ignorant. The other just makes you a regular consumer.
This seems to be in the same vein, only he actually designed parts of his own kit so it's actually cooler.
I have a boss - most people do. I've never found the term offensive... "overseer" would be more offensive.
Jobs was very susceptible to pseudo-science. He even delayed his treatment due to it.
Its been almost 12 hours since the latest Windows 8 sucks submission.
But my God, it sucks.
It's another Debian-based distribution.
I'm old and crusty, but 20 years ago when I was in school they imaged the drives every night when the computer center closed. I remember the panic of having a bad floppy as they were about to close.
I didn't want to pretend that I had experience with every other device on the market. I did have experience with Palm. I liked it a lot at the time. I had played with Windows CE devices and found them to be more capable, but less usable than the Palm. Blackberry continues to have a sub-par internet experience, and it was very much lacking when the iPhone came out.
Today the situation is different. iPhone, Windows, and Android all have very similar internet browsers. All use the iPhone's basic interface. I think it is very fair to say that they copied. It is also fair to say that iPhone built upon what was already out there, and quite obviously copied a lot of stuff that already existed. I've had two iPhones, but I'm currently on Android. My next phone will be Windows if those are still available.
I don't really care who sues who - it is just corporate details that don't bother me in the least. Dispute resolution is what the courts are for, and we have all of these ridiculous IP laws that set up tons of artificial disputes. My hope is that the largest companies in the world eventually come around to see how stupid and expensive all of these IP laws are, and they use their considerable leverage to get them reformed. If these cases result in a monopoly of some sort, I will change my tune - but currently the smartphone market is simply amazing.
All of the Palms had grids of icons, but I have the Palm that was contemporary with the first iPhone, and the experience just can't be compared without writing a 7 page post. The web experience on the Palm was utterly atrocious. There was a convoluted way to get Opera Mini to run after installing some Java stuff on it, but you still had this terrible resistive touch screen and stylus-focused OS. There is a reason that Palm abandoned that software platform, and it had nothing to do with "cool".
Except that the Windows Phones were doing full web fine before there even was an iPhone.
If by "fine" you mean "painful". Windows (and all the other phones, for that matter) tried to either reformat the page for mobile or display the website like a desktop - there was nothing like the "pinch to zoom" experience of the first iPhone. The resistive screens and stylus oriented OS did not exactly help. I was late to the iPhone party, but I did have to admit that the web browsing experience was actually pretty amazing.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
It's all besides the point. Rifles aren't used in many homicides. Handguns on the other hand...
Killing is not taboo in most cultures.
We leave lawmakers to decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior all the time.
Right, but these rules have to be applied uniformly. You can't change the laws based on the people involved. You can say, "no loud noise after 8PM". You can't say, "no anti-government protests after 8PM". You can say "no parking this side of street". You can't say "no parking for homosexuals this side of street".
If everything was regulated like slashdotters think "speech" is, then we would be walking around naked, raping children and killing women just because that would be an excercise of freedom.
You misunderstand their stance. No one can walk around naked. No one can rape. No one can murder. We don't apply these rules based on a criteria decided by a judge - we apply these rules uniformly. That is actually the reason why it is legal for women to walk around topless in New York City. They generally don't, but the courts ruled that if men can have their shirt off, so can women.
You can regulate speech, but it has to be all speech and it has to apply to all people. You can make people apply for a parade permit if they want to have a march - but then you cannot deny people the permit because you don't like their message or their race or their heritage.
if you blackmail a person and he commits suicide, you are going to jail. (by slashdot's definition of free speech, that should be unconstitutional)
Blackmail is illegal... what does that have to do with protected speech?
The typical remedy has been to form a human wall between the families and the church members.
Who gets to decide who can be locked up?
So long as you outlaw ALL yelling, and not just yelling that you disagree with, this is what we would call a noise ordinance.
Can you show me an example of a culture where it is acceptable to mock people engaged in a funeral ritual? I'm fairly certain that's a universal no-no, but I would find a counter example very interesting. I'd wager it is even more universal than a taboo on killing children.
Indeed. The whole *point* of free speech protection is that speech is harmful. If it weren't harmful, no one would object to it and you wouldn't need to protect it. If speech weren't harmful, dictators wouldn't bother keeping media in check and governments wouldn't publish propaganda.
You are damn right, these Westboro nuts will certainly harm the victims' families - but the alternative is letting other people decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.
To be fair, I don't go to jail for insider trading and they do.
IIRC, the UK has a rule where the winning party is paid their legal fees by the losing side.
have your own power plant
Pffft. We have a generator attached to our own oil well and refinery. We also have our own military to ensure a secure supply to the local creek for frack water. Our employees all parachute into work in case of local road disruption, and we have an entirely redundant site 30 miles underground, attached to a fully redundant fiber network.
I've said too much.