That last one was Star Wars? I think not. If you're judging whether the movie deserves a nomination based on what the public enjoyed, allow me to give you a list [all post-Star Wars]
Titantic - took the Oscar and was a huge commercial success - maybe you didn't like it but you talked about what the public enjoyed. This was in 1997. Braveheart - took the Oscar and was also a huge commercial success for the year 1995. Forrest Gump - another huge commercial success that also won an Oscar - 1994.
I could continue but I think I've made my point. You're claiming that movies which are nominated for best picture haven't been commercial successes. This is incredibly false as I've shown by just showing which huge commercial movies have WON the Best Picture Oscar.
These are the categories that already exist which could satisfy your suggestion:
* Best Visual Effects
But I think you're missing the point - giving an award to the producers of the Two Towers for best visual effects or some new category involving animation is not the same as giving Serkis an Oscar for his performance. You're suggesting a general Oscar for the entire crew whereas New Line wants Serkis to get an individual performance actor. The question is whether Serkis deserves an Oscar for his performance alone. Now perhaps the addition of best Digital Performance/Inspiration could give Serkis a category that would fit what he did. Since he did have help from the CG team.
But, on the other hand, actors have their costumes selected for them so, in a way, they have a team behind their performances as well. And wasn't Serkis really just placed in a cool costume?
Well, first of all - New Line was championing for best supporting actor so I am wondering if you read the article. If you're not just trolling, then read on. Otherwise, good show.
As it stated, the way CG characters were handled in the past was that they were thrown in during post-production so that the person responsible for the movement and whatnot wasn't really involved in the scene at the time it was being shot. Jackson took a different approach during the filming and actually had Serkis involved in the process while it was being shot.
The Academy is a little too uppity to throw in new categories until they've already become such an obvious addition that their lack of addition becomes a controversy. The Oscars are really more of a salute to Hollywood's aging stars than rewarding innovative work. [I know that's a generalization and it's not always true - but for the most part it is.]
Leno's humor is hateful? Really? I always found Leno to be dry, boring, and rather pedestrian. He doesn't really come off as very malicious to me. And actually I'd lump Leno and Barry into the same general category of guys that make pretty tame jokes.
Now George Carlin or Lewis Black - they've got some hate to spew. And the fact that they are actually making jokes based on their personal beliefs and how they see the world - makes it that much better. Although, this may not be the case with Barry, Leno is just making an obvious observation about the flavor of the week; I don't get the impression that he cares one way or another about the jokes he makes.
Your signature is foul and really shows your stupidity. Rape is not primarily about physical attraction and is more about a rapist feeling power over his victim. You are immature and childish. With all the trolling that goes on on Slashdot, your signature is the single worst piece of trash I have ever read. You should be ashamed of yourself. God forbid your mother or sister or wife is ever raped - I don't think you'd be so smug then scumbag.
Your girlfriend? Oh, you mean your imaginary girlfriend? The one who you love and cherish and sucks my dick? She's a nice girl - a little chunky - but nice. I'm glad that, in coming up with a fantasy to revolve your life around, you not only chose a female (way not to be a fag, you fucking fag) but she's also good enough so that she would never be satisfied by you. I am glad that you understand the basic construct of reality and that you will never have a meaningful relationship because you are a dickless faggot. I fucked your imaginary girlfriend in the pooper.
Well, I'd say that you're not entirely correct with your statement that the application will only do what a human programs it to do. I mean, obviously if you take this statement literally this is true. An application is only going to run the code that was written to build it. But I believe what you mean is that a program isn't going to do anything beyond what the programmer can think of it doing. I don't think this is a true statement.
For instance, in chess, there are a finite number of moves. Now, let's oversimplify the issue so I can make a point. With these finite number of moves, the computer can run simulations and try every single one of them. A human might consider a very small subset in any given situation whereas a program can keep a database of moves and results, which will lead to an understanding of what move is the 'best', as defined by the probability that it will lead to a winning situation. Thus, with a simple table lookup - not really artificial intelligence - an application can consider moves that the original programmer would never consider. It's a very simple type of learning but I think it shows my point.
Yes, you're right - there are always a way to strip any type of copy protection off of a file which you have. I believe the point in this instance is that the security will make it much more difficult for Joe Sixpack to make something his own.
Let's suppose a new audio codec came out that prevented users from sending the file onward. Sure, people could just take the audio feed and pipe it back into their machine - catching it and encoding into mp3 or perhaps just run a script on the file that would de-donkeyfy it but how many people will have the patience and/or know how to do that? This type of security is going to really reduce how many people have control over the content on their machines. For instance, how many people on Kazaa can encode an mp3? I'd bet that it's less than 30%.
So, in answer to your question - plenty of people already know that but plenty of people will never know it. We have to watch out for their rights.
Here's the link to buy it from Amazon. Also, here's a review someone left in Amazon that I found interesting:
"Eric Greenberg has put together an excellent book, at last someone has thought about planning security, instead of hacking security precautions on as an afterthought. Mr. Greenberg has obviously dived into his depth of experiences and amalgamated them into a coherent way to build a security strategy.
Were the book really shines and that experience comes through is in realizing that security is not just about putting a lock on a door. It is about putting the procedures, hardware, software, people and most importantly the mindset into an organization in a cohesive way so that nothing is overlooked and the checks and balances are in place to validate every part of these measures. The author also understands the vital importance that security is all cost and benefit.
By taking the overhead view and delving into the cracks in the armor organizations seldom think about, the book provides the templates for building that elusive security plan. These templates (worth the price of admission alone) are used in a step-by-step approach to replacing the haphazard security with a coherent, manageable, administrable, and most importantly, a downright implemental plan. And book doesn't just stop at getting the plan in place; it goes into the extremely vital and usually overlooked, "What happens next?" and builds the strategy for response, recovery, testing, support, procurement, integration, staging and training.
This is a must-read for information security professionals and infrastructure planners"
No, I don't. In fact, no one else does either. Your attempt at humor was poor and I am disgusted with you right now. Perhaps once you finally have sex with a woman, you'll stop being such a whiney liberal. I am hoping that will be the case. Of course, you actually engaging in sexual relations with a woman isn't very likely. I wish you the best of luck.
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you? Yeah, the Muslims are fucking shit up worldwide for the rest of us but they've been doing that ever since Mohammed shat his filthy little religion into the world. Just as it was in the great 1300's, so too shall the Muslim forces be driven back into the foul holes they came from. If you're feeling so depressed and sad, suck a dick. That will make you feel better. I remember talking to you and you went on and on about how sucking dick made you feel alive and safe and happy. So go do that. Stop whining. What are you? A little girl? A scared little girl with soiled panties? Is that what you are, fag?! Answer the goddamned question you asshat!
Save it all? I don't think there would be an article if that was an option. You see, there are time and space limitations imposed by the problem that you simply have not considered. Constantly "saving it all", even those parts that have not changed since the last instance, is a poor idea.
You are clearly an uninformed IT fucktard. Since you don't have any formal education in the field of Computer Science, I will try to use the same ambiguous terminology that you have used. Now, the underlying "core", [the word that has spewed forth from your asshole, or face? I guess it doesn't matter, there's no difference.] to the current Windows environment is just as stable as UNIX. In fact, the man who was most singlehandedly responsible for the development of the NT kernel, was also involved in the original implementation of UNIX at Parc. Of course, you don't know any of this because you're just another anime-watching faggot that believes he has knowledge simply because you've installed Linux. Congrats you fucking asshat! You've won the Moron of the Day award!
Microsoft will never go open source and you will never touch a female human. You eat shit and smell foul because of it. Go back to whatever backwards land you came from and stay out of the United States.
I've used this and it was okay - I don't really have any need for making constant phone calls so the dual purpose of the device isn't really of interest to me. What is troubling and why I wouldn't buy this is that the only memory expansion you can use is the Sony Memory Stick - a proprietary memory device. What this says to me is that Sony wants to control the price of any future add-ons for the phone and that, in all likelihood, they're going to consistently steal my money! In some instances, you're forced to deal with proprietary formats due to lack of other choices, but in this case, I'm sure I'll be able to find a PDA/phone that uses SD or MMC.
Hmm, my good ol' Voodoo 3 isn't listed. Maybe it's time to upgrade?
Although, as I've gotten older I've lost my interest in the computer games market and thus, my video card isn't quite so important. I just like my consoles, where I can just pop the disc in and start playing (after significant load time.) Having to worry about and, for that matter, consider if I have the right drivers is something I just don't have time for these days.
Can Part of what makes these games enjoyable is that there is a rich multiplayer aspect to the application. When a development team takes on such an application, good software engineering will tell you that testing that this requirement has been fulfilled should be just another step in the process, like testing any other requirement. Furthermore, load testing should commence as soon as there is a prototype because if it's not and the testing is put off until the end, then you could end up with a system that has to be completely redesigned after a few thousand users brings down your alpha software.
There are plenty of RPG's without "magic." I really can't follow what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that all RPG's have that certain flair that makes them special or are you saying in order to be an RPG, there must be a magical element to the characters in the game? In either case, you are wrong.
Honestly, I don't understand what statement you're trying to make with your post.
Ah, in what appears to be typical fashion for you, you've again sidestepped the issue. I called you out and pointed out a number of ways in which the government imposes morality on the populace. You did not address that point. Because you chose not to have a conversation and wanted to merely spout, I will do the same in all my future replies to you.
Do you mean "an impassioned exhultation"? I think that if you're going to act pretentious, you better make sure you understand the difference between "a" and "an", okay?
I am not discussing the CIPA act. This thread has nothing to do with that. You made a statement that everyone is free from the government pushing morals down their throat and I said that you are wrong. I will now attempt to make it more simple for you, since you're obviously getting losted somewhere along the line.
All laws come from either a utilitarian need in order to preserve society or they come from a certain moral standpoint that the government takes. For instance, children aren't allowed to purchase pornography. If children weren't allowed to purchase pornography, society would not fail horribly. It is because the government has taken a moral standpoint, not a pragmatic one, that this law exists. The law that says that women can vote is also a moral one, not a pragmatic one. Society can and did function quite fine without women voting. The government decided that it was immoral to keep women as second class citizens and therefore gave them the right to vote. Even if you want to argue that these are pragmatic laws (which I am sure you will because you disagree with everything I say simply because you feel the need to), the effect of them is that morality is imposed on the populace. You may argue that the law against murder is a pragmatic one because if people are allowed to murder, then society will degrade into anarchy. But I will state that this has the EFFECT of imposing the idea that murder is wrong on the general public - obviously a moral standpoint. I can make this argument about a wide variety of laws.
You were correct in saying that the first amendment protects the people from a state religion but you are wrong in stating that there is no state-imposed morality. It certainly exists, even if for the preservation of the state, there are still moral grounds that the country functions on. I realize that you were simply trying to gain some karma by taking a stand for the people and waxing intellectual on a subject you know little about, but I have called you on it. Your replies have been sidestepping everything I have said and, frankly, you shouldn't bother anymore. I've made my point beautifully and you have floundered badly.
No, it is not true. You're giving 40% - that's too high a percentage to say that "all" don't care. Perhaps if you want to generalize and you've got 90% participation in the generalization, then I would agree. And you say "pretty much everyone" - where are you getting these figures? Have you gotten any statistics or are you just making shit up? Ah yes, you are just making shit up.
And why are you saying I am in shitty company? I'm not a website adminstrator you fucking moron.
The issue is that you tried to use a flawed argument to refute me. That was unwise, considering the size of my dick. My dick is huge and I was forced to flop it down on your face. I realize that you don't really want my dick on your face (you're a pansy but you're not a gay pansy) but it had to be done. You have to realize that in a piss fight, I can urinate on you a whole lot more than you can urinate on me. Now, I hope you learned a lesson.
If you want to make a slippery slope argument, you need some type of past precedence to cite concerning an entity's behavior. You did not do this. You failed to satisfy any of the needs that would make a slippery slope argument even a bit reasonable. You failed, miserably. When people fail, it makes me want to take a big dump on their faces. But, I was merciful on the day you tripped and fell in your posting attempts. I did not defecate on your face. I chose to instead slap you in the face with my dong. You will learn from this experience, I hope. Unless of course you are some piece of trash - did your parents divorce? If they did, you were the cause, asshole. You drove two people who loved each other apart! You fucking ass-goblin! What an awful thing to do, especially as a kid. You should feel shame! Okay, I think I've explained life to you enough for today. Expect more lessons later my nigga.
Now Jeremy, when you start your post with "actually", you are implying that you've got something to refute what I said. Now, what I said was that state-imposed morality is not something the general public is free of. You cite a group which is trying to get blue laws repealed. This is not a valid argument. Certainly you've taken some logic at some point in your career right? The liquor laws, if you consider them religion-imposed or morality-imposed, are still here. Thus, your original statement that Americans are free of religious imposition and moral imposition is false. You're strengthening what I said Jeremy. Don't you see?
Now, perhaps what you meant was not a refutation, but rather an addition. You were adding that while moral-imposition exists, so does - in a way - religious imposition. But you shouldn't have began your post with "actually" if this was the case my young friend. I will ask you to correct your phrases in the future. Thank you.
First off, it is website administrators. Second, that's a huge generalization. I think that someone running a website that they rely on for their livelihood (a web-based market which is owned and operated by the same person, for instance) is just, if not more, interested in keeping his or her server up as your typical UT junkie. I'm not taking anything away from UT junkies, I'm trying to give website admins a bit more credit. You're making a huge generalization and one that I don't believe is true.
"The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality."
Jeremy, this is false. The religion aspect is correct but many of our laws come from state-sponsored morality. We are not free of them. Blue laws preventing the sale of alcohol on Sundays, gambling bans, laws against obscenity, etc - all come from moral grounds. There's a certain moral standpoint that the government has taken in order to derive laws.
I am nit-picking but I want to make it clear that keeping kids away from pornography is a moral choice that the majority in our system will say is the right moral choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Titantic - took the Oscar and was a huge commercial success - maybe you didn't like it but you talked about what the public enjoyed. This was in 1997.
Braveheart - took the Oscar and was also a huge commercial success for the year 1995.
Forrest Gump - another huge commercial success that also won an Oscar - 1994.
I could continue but I think I've made my point. You're claiming that movies which are nominated for best picture haven't been commercial successes. This is incredibly false as I've shown by just showing which huge commercial movies have WON the Best Picture Oscar.
Next time you rant, make a little sense.
* Best Visual Effects
But I think you're missing the point - giving an award to the producers of the Two Towers for best visual effects or some new category involving animation is not the same as giving Serkis an Oscar for his performance. You're suggesting a general Oscar for the entire crew whereas New Line wants Serkis to get an individual performance actor. The question is whether Serkis deserves an Oscar for his performance alone. Now perhaps the addition of best Digital Performance/Inspiration could give Serkis a category that would fit what he did. Since he did have help from the CG team.
But, on the other hand, actors have their costumes selected for them so, in a way, they have a team behind their performances as well. And wasn't Serkis really just placed in a cool costume?
As it stated, the way CG characters were handled in the past was that they were thrown in during post-production so that the person responsible for the movement and whatnot wasn't really involved in the scene at the time it was being shot. Jackson took a different approach during the filming and actually had Serkis involved in the process while it was being shot.
The Academy is a little too uppity to throw in new categories until they've already become such an obvious addition that their lack of addition becomes a controversy. The Oscars are really more of a salute to Hollywood's aging stars than rewarding innovative work. [I know that's a generalization and it's not always true - but for the most part it is.]
Now George Carlin or Lewis Black - they've got some hate to spew. And the fact that they are actually making jokes based on their personal beliefs and how they see the world - makes it that much better. Although, this may not be the case with Barry, Leno is just making an obvious observation about the flavor of the week; I don't get the impression that he cares one way or another about the jokes he makes.
Your signature is foul and really shows your stupidity. Rape is not primarily about physical attraction and is more about a rapist feeling power over his victim. You are immature and childish. With all the trolling that goes on on Slashdot, your signature is the single worst piece of trash I have ever read. You should be ashamed of yourself. God forbid your mother or sister or wife is ever raped - I don't think you'd be so smug then scumbag.
Your girlfriend? Oh, you mean your imaginary girlfriend? The one who you love and cherish and sucks my dick? She's a nice girl - a little chunky - but nice. I'm glad that, in coming up with a fantasy to revolve your life around, you not only chose a female (way not to be a fag, you fucking fag) but she's also good enough so that she would never be satisfied by you. I am glad that you understand the basic construct of reality and that you will never have a meaningful relationship because you are a dickless faggot. I fucked your imaginary girlfriend in the pooper.
For instance, in chess, there are a finite number of moves. Now, let's oversimplify the issue so I can make a point. With these finite number of moves, the computer can run simulations and try every single one of them. A human might consider a very small subset in any given situation whereas a program can keep a database of moves and results, which will lead to an understanding of what move is the 'best', as defined by the probability that it will lead to a winning situation. Thus, with a simple table lookup - not really artificial intelligence - an application can consider moves that the original programmer would never consider. It's a very simple type of learning but I think it shows my point.
Let's suppose a new audio codec came out that prevented users from sending the file onward. Sure, people could just take the audio feed and pipe it back into their machine - catching it and encoding into mp3 or perhaps just run a script on the file that would de-donkeyfy it but how many people will have the patience and/or know how to do that? This type of security is going to really reduce how many people have control over the content on their machines. For instance, how many people on Kazaa can encode an mp3? I'd bet that it's less than 30%.
So, in answer to your question - plenty of people already know that but plenty of people will never know it. We have to watch out for their rights.
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you? Yeah, the Muslims are fucking shit up worldwide for the rest of us but they've been doing that ever since Mohammed shat his filthy little religion into the world. Just as it was in the great 1300's, so too shall the Muslim forces be driven back into the foul holes they came from. If you're feeling so depressed and sad, suck a dick. That will make you feel better. I remember talking to you and you went on and on about how sucking dick made you feel alive and safe and happy. So go do that. Stop whining. What are you? A little girl? A scared little girl with soiled panties? Is that what you are, fag?! Answer the goddamned question you asshat!
Alright, you can go back to being not-funny.
No, my cousin is named H.R. Geiger. I think you're confused. Who is this Giger character you speak of?
Microsoft will never go open source and you will never touch a female human. You eat shit and smell foul because of it. Go back to whatever backwards land you came from and stay out of the United States.
I've used this and it was okay - I don't really have any need for making constant phone calls so the dual purpose of the device isn't really of interest to me. What is troubling and why I wouldn't buy this is that the only memory expansion you can use is the Sony Memory Stick - a proprietary memory device. What this says to me is that Sony wants to control the price of any future add-ons for the phone and that, in all likelihood, they're going to consistently steal my money! In some instances, you're forced to deal with proprietary formats due to lack of other choices, but in this case, I'm sure I'll be able to find a PDA/phone that uses SD or MMC.
Although, as I've gotten older I've lost my interest in the computer games market and thus, my video card isn't quite so important. I just like my consoles, where I can just pop the disc in and start playing (after significant load time.) Having to worry about and, for that matter, consider if I have the right drivers is something I just don't have time for these days.
Can Part of what makes these games enjoyable is that there is a rich multiplayer aspect to the application. When a development team takes on such an application, good software engineering will tell you that testing that this requirement has been fulfilled should be just another step in the process, like testing any other requirement. Furthermore, load testing should commence as soon as there is a prototype because if it's not and the testing is put off until the end, then you could end up with a system that has to be completely redesigned after a few thousand users brings down your alpha software.
Honestly, I don't understand what statement you're trying to make with your post.
Ah, in what appears to be typical fashion for you, you've again sidestepped the issue. I called you out and pointed out a number of ways in which the government imposes morality on the populace. You did not address that point. Because you chose not to have a conversation and wanted to merely spout, I will do the same in all my future replies to you.
I am not discussing the CIPA act. This thread has nothing to do with that. You made a statement that everyone is free from the government pushing morals down their throat and I said that you are wrong. I will now attempt to make it more simple for you, since you're obviously getting losted somewhere along the line.
All laws come from either a utilitarian need in order to preserve society or they come from a certain moral standpoint that the government takes. For instance, children aren't allowed to purchase pornography. If children weren't allowed to purchase pornography, society would not fail horribly. It is because the government has taken a moral standpoint, not a pragmatic one, that this law exists. The law that says that women can vote is also a moral one, not a pragmatic one. Society can and did function quite fine without women voting. The government decided that it was immoral to keep women as second class citizens and therefore gave them the right to vote. Even if you want to argue that these are pragmatic laws (which I am sure you will because you disagree with everything I say simply because you feel the need to), the effect of them is that morality is imposed on the populace. You may argue that the law against murder is a pragmatic one because if people are allowed to murder, then society will degrade into anarchy. But I will state that this has the EFFECT of imposing the idea that murder is wrong on the general public - obviously a moral standpoint. I can make this argument about a wide variety of laws.
You were correct in saying that the first amendment protects the people from a state religion but you are wrong in stating that there is no state-imposed morality. It certainly exists, even if for the preservation of the state, there are still moral grounds that the country functions on. I realize that you were simply trying to gain some karma by taking a stand for the people and waxing intellectual on a subject you know little about, but I have called you on it. Your replies have been sidestepping everything I have said and, frankly, you shouldn't bother anymore. I've made my point beautifully and you have floundered badly.
And why are you saying I am in shitty company? I'm not a website adminstrator you fucking moron.
If you want to make a slippery slope argument, you need some type of past precedence to cite concerning an entity's behavior. You did not do this. You failed to satisfy any of the needs that would make a slippery slope argument even a bit reasonable. You failed, miserably. When people fail, it makes me want to take a big dump on their faces. But, I was merciful on the day you tripped and fell in your posting attempts. I did not defecate on your face. I chose to instead slap you in the face with my dong. You will learn from this experience, I hope. Unless of course you are some piece of trash - did your parents divorce? If they did, you were the cause, asshole. You drove two people who loved each other apart! You fucking ass-goblin! What an awful thing to do, especially as a kid. You should feel shame! Okay, I think I've explained life to you enough for today. Expect more lessons later my nigga.
If your dick was the size of mine, you'd have jealous people calling you a troll too.
Now, perhaps what you meant was not a refutation, but rather an addition. You were adding that while moral-imposition exists, so does - in a way - religious imposition. But you shouldn't have began your post with "actually" if this was the case my young friend. I will ask you to correct your phrases in the future. Thank you.
I am nit-picking but I want to make it clear that keeping kids away from pornography is a moral choice that the majority in our system will say is the right moral choice.