That doesn't seem as likely the cause of him being banned as the fact that he blocks isles for hours while he systematically dismantles their shelves and that doesn't even touch on the possibility he (or some fraction of those like him) isn't leaving the shelves the way he found them.
"I just don't see how it might benefit a dialog-centric drama or comedy."
That is the same line of thinking that leads to cheesy 3D effects in the first place. 3D allows you to look at a scene and see it with an actual sense of depth. It benefits your dialog centric drama by making it seem as if they are having their dialogue in an alcove of the same room you are sitting in.
Exactly. Sound effects need the full dynamic range but dialogue does not. First, they almost always make dialogue too soft. I shouldn't need to max my volume on my surround sound for regular dialogue in calm moments to be audible this audio should be mixed to be appropriate for someone actually standing on the other side of the room and speaking. Second, the range they are using between speaking to people across the room, vs people next to them, vs real life soft speech (which is never at whisper level) is ridiculous. Actual human beings don't use a great dynamic range in speech. They speak at a volume that is intended to be heard.
I have a quiet home theater with a 5.1 system. I have no problem with loud effects and soft effects. I'm only talking about the dialogue. We don't walk around speaking in the softest possible barely audible whispers during calm moments in the real world. What is wrong with putting the normal conversational dialogue at the same level as normal conversational dialogue would be with someone in the same room?
Dynamic range is great for effects, but we don't use a large range when speaking in the real world and don't need one in our movie dialogue.
Dynamic range compression is what you have to do to make the movie viewable AFTER the sound guys have screwed it up. I'm not saying they shouldn't use a full dynamic range, I'm saying they shouldn't be using the full range for the dialogue. It is possible to use full dynamic range for effects and mix dialogue so you can hear it.
In the real world we may be capable of using the softest whisper or screaming at the top of our lungs but we don't do that when speaking to each other. There is no reason for dialogue in movies to utilize a greater volume range than actual human dialogue.
Exactly there are times when its coming right for you is appropriate to the movie. If you are seeing Indiana Jones perspective when a trap triggers a bolder rolling at it him... well that fits the moment, it's appropriate at that point to feel his suspense.
But we all know they don't limit that effect to moments where it adds to immersion.
It may restrict the director but so did HD. Millions of special effects techniques have become obsolete as video and display technology have improved and the effects no longer hold up under a clear picture.
That's well worth it in my opinion. 3D used to make it look like you are watching real events unfold through a window is how it should be. Things should never fly at me just for the sake of doing so. There is a time and place for that sort of thing. For instance, in First Knight Lancelot runs the gauntlet and there is a scene where he looks down and there are axes flying from side to side and at him and so forth. Showing that in 3D from his perspective with objects coming at you would be appropriate only because it immerses you in the challenge the character is facing.
The gimmick shots will go away on their own. What worries me is that the technology is mature enough to be enjoyable rather than a distraction but there isn't much content.
Thats a flaw in the film itself, not the technology. The technology adds depth. That is a undeniable improvement.
It isn't 3D's fault that idiot directors can't resist the urge to make 3D show off effects any more than it is the fault of dynamic range technology that idiot sound effects people can't resist the urge to a wide dynamic range on the dialogue and claim it offers a better experience.
P.S. Idiot sound guys. Make explosions boom, make whispers audible to the average 60yr old at the middle volume setting on the typical 600w surround system from walmart. Use lower levels only for things like leaves falling and the like that won't ruin the film if you don't hear them.
3D is best used to simply add depth to a normal film so that everything appears more lifelike and vivid. You know, characters are in a field and far things seem far and close things seem close with focus to infinity. The moment they start using 3D for effects that are about 3D, things start to go downhill.
Avatar was an excellent example. 3D effects for their own sake were pretty scarce. For the most part you forgot you were watching 3D and simply immersed into the film.
Alice knew it too which is why Alice should be responsible for the risk she assumed when driving in spite of it.
The correct avenue for removing irresponsible drivers from the road is the police. Beyond that, everyone assumes their own risks on the road. Furthermore, the idea that one of the participants is always responsible for the accident is something invented by the insurance companies. If you weren't driving recklessly (aka are going to be arrested) then you aren't at fault in an accident, you just had one.
Birds fly into large windows and crack them. Do you force everyone to pay bird insurance or do you let it work itself out? Those with more large windows have greater risk and therefore will end up paying more as a whole for window repairs. Don't want to pay for window repairs from accidents that 'aren't your fault' don't buy large windows.
But that's not fair!, cries the Slashdot nanny. Well life's not fair. Just because you feel it is reasonable to drive doesn't mean you don't have to pay for the real risks you assume and not the risks which would be 'fair'.
"As a side note...I don't agree at all with using tax rebates/deductions as a manner of regulating or steering behavior. I don't think there should be deductions for having kids (hell, they actually use MORE resources), or homes, buying an eco friendly car...etc."
These aren't to regulate behavior. These are a way to try to give the average person some of the advantages businesses enjoy. If you were a business you'd only have to pay taxes on the money that is left after paying all your utility bills, vehicle bills (no matter how luxurious or how many you have), mortgage/rent, food, medical bills, loan payments of all types, repairs on your home/car, any expense related to school, anything else you can claim could be a 'life expense'. Only what is left after your cost of doing business aka the 'profit' is taxed.
Children are expensive thus the deduction. Homes are expensive. Eco-friendly cars just cost society less money/resources.
Marriage on the other hand... there is no justification for that tax break. Or you could look at it as a penalty on the single.
"then Kelly is stuck out through no fault of her own"
Not true. Even if it is Joe's fault Kelly assumed that risk when she chose to operate a vehicle knowing there was a possibility of getting into a collision. Additionally, there is a bogus assumption that someone is always at fault in an accident even so called 'no fault' states actually distribute the fault between the individuals. I would contend that in most cases both parties should pay for their own repairs/medical care especially since they knew the risk when they left the house.
Insurance is a gamble. You are betting you will pay less (including interest over time) than the insurance company pays out. Your odds aren't any better than playing slots.
The real problem is that people wouldn't put aside and invest those premiums and the people who may pay more over time but need to pay it early (which statistically is common, you have accidents young and just pay into the bottom line when older). There is no need for for-profit insurance companies to solve this. You can spread risk by using co-op insurance or banks could offer federally insured direct deposit accounts where you pay your premium and have some ability to select an investment strategy. If you have a large payout early the bank covers it on a low interest (but federally guaranteed) loan against the future payments on the account. In other words, if you have a positive premium balance you make interest, a negative and you pay interest. If you have a positive balance you can transfer to another bank, if you have no license you can close it. If you die it can be willed either to be continued or cashed out.
In most places trained medical professionals have a legal and ethical obligation to assist to their capacity when they see someone in need of emergency care.
The fire department might not have had an obligation to show up in the first place but when they are deployed at the site and there is an emergency service to provide it shouldn't be optional.
Because it is a public service. In exchange for putting up with taxes and limitations in your freedoms for the common good you become part of the common and entitled to the good. This means you have a RIGHT to police protections, fire protections, health care (even if we can't seem to agree how much), education (ditto), roads, and other government services.
In exchange for paying a proportional share of the taxes which should pay for these services 100% (fees for public services are nothing but tax breaks for the wealthy) you get protection from the wouldbe local warlord who wants to rape and enslave your family because he is stronger and protection of your property. Everyone uses public services so it doesn't much matter if someone takes greater advantage or you don't use a particular service.
Gov't personnel should be paid from the appropriate gov't tax revenues. There is no justification for charging a citizen for a public service, they already pay their share for any and all services they utilize when they pay their share of taxes.
This should not have been voluntary OR a fee. It should be a tax. Fees for government services are pretty much universally the result of politicians catering to wealthy individuals who want to pay an equal amount rather than pay for public services through the tax system which makes them pay in proportion to their disposable income.
Obviously you want some sort of response but there is no particular reason it needs to be a return communication.
When i say, "foods here" getting up and grabbing some food is a satisfactory response. Making a mental note to get some during your next commercial break will work too.
Is there an 'ignore any user who ever mentions what they had for breakfast' option? WTF why are people wasting their time posting this useless garbage and why are other people reading it?
I think we should gather up all the chatty bitches who LIKE inane small talk like this and lock them up on twitter. Then we only have to encounter them when we want to get laid.
The end effect is still fairly certain. conglomo/cvs/walgreens all export their profits permanently and do not help to stimulate the local economy outside of jobs and additionally do not purchase goods and/or services locally. The goods and services these stores allow do not support profit-making so they can't stimulate the local economy in that way either.
The contribution of these stores can be trivially summarized as salaries - profits - federal withholdings and if the result ever became close to a positive figure they would close the store. By definition, if these stores weren't bankrupting the community they would be bankrupt themselves.
"Perhaps you have an alias set up that maps "rm" to "rm -i" -- it's a pretty common default alias, but it's a function of your *nix setup, not the rm command itself."
You are correct. Since every major distro has done that for the past 10+ years out of the box I'd actually forgotten.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't seem as likely the cause of him being banned as the fact that he blocks isles for hours while he systematically dismantles their shelves and that doesn't even touch on the possibility he (or some fraction of those like him) isn't leaving the shelves the way he found them.
"I just don't see how it might benefit a dialog-centric drama or comedy."
That is the same line of thinking that leads to cheesy 3D effects in the first place. 3D allows you to look at a scene and see it with an actual sense of depth. It benefits your dialog centric drama by making it seem as if they are having their dialogue in an alcove of the same room you are sitting in.
You should see a doctor. Nor wearing sunglasses with proper uv protection is very bad for your eyes.
Exactly. Sound effects need the full dynamic range but dialogue does not. First, they almost always make dialogue too soft. I shouldn't need to max my volume on my surround sound for regular dialogue in calm moments to be audible this audio should be mixed to be appropriate for someone actually standing on the other side of the room and speaking. Second, the range they are using between speaking to people across the room, vs people next to them, vs real life soft speech (which is never at whisper level) is ridiculous. Actual human beings don't use a great dynamic range in speech. They speak at a volume that is intended to be heard.
I have a quiet home theater with a 5.1 system. I have no problem with loud effects and soft effects. I'm only talking about the dialogue. We don't walk around speaking in the softest possible barely audible whispers during calm moments in the real world. What is wrong with putting the normal conversational dialogue at the same level as normal conversational dialogue would be with someone in the same room?
Dynamic range is great for effects, but we don't use a large range when speaking in the real world and don't need one in our movie dialogue.
Dynamic range compression is what you have to do to make the movie viewable AFTER the sound guys have screwed it up. I'm not saying they shouldn't use a full dynamic range, I'm saying they shouldn't be using the full range for the dialogue. It is possible to use full dynamic range for effects and mix dialogue so you can hear it.
In the real world we may be capable of using the softest whisper or screaming at the top of our lungs but we don't do that when speaking to each other. There is no reason for dialogue in movies to utilize a greater volume range than actual human dialogue.
Exactly there are times when its coming right for you is appropriate to the movie. If you are seeing Indiana Jones perspective when a trap triggers a bolder rolling at it him... well that fits the moment, it's appropriate at that point to feel his suspense.
But we all know they don't limit that effect to moments where it adds to immersion.
It may restrict the director but so did HD. Millions of special effects techniques have become obsolete as video and display technology have improved and the effects no longer hold up under a clear picture.
That's well worth it in my opinion. 3D used to make it look like you are watching real events unfold through a window is how it should be. Things should never fly at me just for the sake of doing so. There is a time and place for that sort of thing. For instance, in First Knight Lancelot runs the gauntlet and there is a scene where he looks down and there are axes flying from side to side and at him and so forth. Showing that in 3D from his perspective with objects coming at you would be appropriate only because it immerses you in the challenge the character is facing.
The gimmick shots will go away on their own. What worries me is that the technology is mature enough to be enjoyable rather than a distraction but there isn't much content.
Thats a flaw in the film itself, not the technology. The technology adds depth. That is a undeniable improvement.
It isn't 3D's fault that idiot directors can't resist the urge to make 3D show off effects any more than it is the fault of dynamic range technology that idiot sound effects people can't resist the urge to a wide dynamic range on the dialogue and claim it offers a better experience.
P.S. Idiot sound guys. Make explosions boom, make whispers audible to the average 60yr old at the middle volume setting on the typical 600w surround system from walmart. Use lower levels only for things like leaves falling and the like that won't ruin the film if you don't hear them.
3D is best used to simply add depth to a normal film so that everything appears more lifelike and vivid. You know, characters are in a field and far things seem far and close things seem close with focus to infinity. The moment they start using 3D for effects that are about 3D, things start to go downhill.
Avatar was an excellent example. 3D effects for their own sake were pretty scarce. For the most part you forgot you were watching 3D and simply immersed into the film.
"Pets are NOT just a possession, if you think of them that way, you should not own them. "
What else would they be?
"We know that traffic accidents happen."
Alice knew it too which is why Alice should be responsible for the risk she assumed when driving in spite of it.
The correct avenue for removing irresponsible drivers from the road is the police. Beyond that, everyone assumes their own risks on the road. Furthermore, the idea that one of the participants is always responsible for the accident is something invented by the insurance companies. If you weren't driving recklessly (aka are going to be arrested) then you aren't at fault in an accident, you just had one.
Birds fly into large windows and crack them. Do you force everyone to pay bird insurance or do you let it work itself out? Those with more large windows have greater risk and therefore will end up paying more as a whole for window repairs. Don't want to pay for window repairs from accidents that 'aren't your fault' don't buy large windows.
But that's not fair!, cries the Slashdot nanny. Well life's not fair. Just because you feel it is reasonable to drive doesn't mean you don't have to pay for the real risks you assume and not the risks which would be 'fair'.
"As a side note...I don't agree at all with using tax rebates/deductions as a manner of regulating or steering behavior. I don't think there should be deductions for having kids (hell, they actually use MORE resources), or homes, buying an eco friendly car...etc."
These aren't to regulate behavior. These are a way to try to give the average person some of the advantages businesses enjoy. If you were a business you'd only have to pay taxes on the money that is left after paying all your utility bills, vehicle bills (no matter how luxurious or how many you have), mortgage/rent, food, medical bills, loan payments of all types, repairs on your home/car, any expense related to school, anything else you can claim could be a 'life expense'. Only what is left after your cost of doing business aka the 'profit' is taxed.
Children are expensive thus the deduction. Homes are expensive. Eco-friendly cars just cost society less money/resources.
Marriage on the other hand... there is no justification for that tax break. Or you could look at it as a penalty on the single.
"then Kelly is stuck out through no fault of her own"
Not true. Even if it is Joe's fault Kelly assumed that risk when she chose to operate a vehicle knowing there was a possibility of getting into a collision. Additionally, there is a bogus assumption that someone is always at fault in an accident even so called 'no fault' states actually distribute the fault between the individuals. I would contend that in most cases both parties should pay for their own repairs/medical care especially since they knew the risk when they left the house.
Insurance is a gamble. You are betting you will pay less (including interest over time) than the insurance company pays out. Your odds aren't any better than playing slots.
The real problem is that people wouldn't put aside and invest those premiums and the people who may pay more over time but need to pay it early (which statistically is common, you have accidents young and just pay into the bottom line when older). There is no need for for-profit insurance companies to solve this. You can spread risk by using co-op insurance or banks could offer federally insured direct deposit accounts where you pay your premium and have some ability to select an investment strategy. If you have a large payout early the bank covers it on a low interest (but federally guaranteed) loan against the future payments on the account. In other words, if you have a positive premium balance you make interest, a negative and you pay interest. If you have a positive balance you can transfer to another bank, if you have no license you can close it. If you die it can be willed either to be continued or cashed out.
In most places trained medical professionals have a legal and ethical obligation to assist to their capacity when they see someone in need of emergency care.
The fire department might not have had an obligation to show up in the first place but when they are deployed at the site and there is an emergency service to provide it shouldn't be optional.
Because it is a public service. In exchange for putting up with taxes and limitations in your freedoms for the common good you become part of the common and entitled to the good. This means you have a RIGHT to police protections, fire protections, health care (even if we can't seem to agree how much), education (ditto), roads, and other government services.
In exchange for paying a proportional share of the taxes which should pay for these services 100% (fees for public services are nothing but tax breaks for the wealthy) you get protection from the wouldbe local warlord who wants to rape and enslave your family because he is stronger and protection of your property. Everyone uses public services so it doesn't much matter if someone takes greater advantage or you don't use a particular service.
Gov't personnel should be paid from the appropriate gov't tax revenues. There is no justification for charging a citizen for a public service, they already pay their share for any and all services they utilize when they pay their share of taxes.
how is this flamebait if the gp is not?
This should not have been voluntary OR a fee. It should be a tax. Fees for government services are pretty much universally the result of politicians catering to wealthy individuals who want to pay an equal amount rather than pay for public services through the tax system which makes them pay in proportion to their disposable income.
"participants were fed sweet foods such as biscuits or salty ones such as crisps"
You couldn't come up with something sweeter than a biscuit and wtf is a crisp?
Obviously you want some sort of response but there is no particular reason it needs to be a return communication.
When i say, "foods here" getting up and grabbing some food is a satisfactory response. Making a mental note to get some during your next commercial break will work too.
Is there an 'ignore any user who ever mentions what they had for breakfast' option? WTF why are people wasting their time posting this useless garbage and why are other people reading it?
I think we should gather up all the chatty bitches who LIKE inane small talk like this and lock them up on twitter. Then we only have to encounter them when we want to get laid.
The end effect is still fairly certain. conglomo/cvs/walgreens all export their profits permanently and do not help to stimulate the local economy outside of jobs and additionally do not purchase goods and/or services locally. The goods and services these stores allow do not support profit-making so they can't stimulate the local economy in that way either.
The contribution of these stores can be trivially summarized as salaries - profits - federal withholdings and if the result ever became close to a positive figure they would close the store. By definition, if these stores weren't bankrupting the community they would be bankrupt themselves.
"Perhaps you have an alias set up that maps "rm" to "rm -i" -- it's a pretty common default alias, but it's a function of your *nix setup, not the rm command itself."
You are correct. Since every major distro has done that for the past 10+ years out of the box I'd actually forgotten.
I stand corrected. This has been the case on every box I've touched in so long I've just come to expect it.
rm is hardly the only example that supports your point in any case.