Mplayer is one of those apps I just can't live without on my machine. It handles just about anything and everything that I've thrown at it. I use it as my default mp3/movie player. And Quicktime movies are not a problem for Linux anymore.
I quickly made a list of all of my 10+ gigs of mp3/m4a files just using find and grep...touched it up a bit in vim and then use "aterm -e mplayer -playlist/home/sgant/music/playlist -shuffle" and I've got hours and hours of back to back music. When I want something a little more structured, I have different playlists.
Yeah, I probably could do this with xmms...but why?
Give Mplayer it's due. It's a fine piece of software and they deserve all the recognition they get.
Yes, he is. It's getting to the point that he's starting to sound like one of those "Apple is dying, Apple doesn't have a future, Apple can't compete, Apple is dying" drones that go on year after year.
He seems to be trying to start that tradition now with Linux/Free/Open source software, even though it's going strong now for 10+ years and getting stronger and stronger.
The guy is a joke. And it's obvious no one who reads Forbes takes him seriously, as Linux still makes huge inroads to business.
How are they working to increase market share and compete with the Wintel market?
Perhaps they're not even trying to compete anymore. I mean, they've shown they can co-exist with other computers in the world. I know many people that have both systems at home and work with both systems at work. It's no longer a "one or the other" problem for people. They've been going and going and going for decades. Decades! They may not have huge marketshare, but they're also not trying to take over the entire market like other companies.
Perhaps it's Nash's Equalibrium at work? Just a thought
My take on it, desperate people trying desperatly to hang on to outdated ideas. Whenever these people try to argue something, they have to nitpick instead of looking at the overall picture. For instance that site says:
The implied view being addressed - that "the Bible arrived by fax from heaven" or "dropped out of the clouds" - is a tendentious straw man. The Bible was composed by men, yes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is never claimed, however, that this inspiration involved the Spirit taking any kind of unnatural force over the Bible's authors, much less that it fell from the clouds. Rather it is held that God chose specific instruments from men and that the Spirit guided them.
The problem with that argument is that they're trying to place into "fact" something that cannot ever be proved. That the bible was composed under inspiration of the spirit. How is this history? How is this a "fact"? Well, the bible says so! So it must be true!
Well, what's stopping God from inspiring someone today in the year of 2003 into writing another chapter of the bible? If they're "inspired" by god to write down a new gospel, would it get included into the bible now? Of course not, mental illness is handled better today as we've gained more insite into that disease. If we would treat someone like this today as mentally ill, then why are people so quick to jump to the conclusion that the people writting these things back then were perfectly sane? Faith? Ah...that slippery thing.
But hey, if you want to believe in an invisible man that lives in the sky, who am I to tell you you're crazy.
You're correct. I was refering more to The Church than the actual writers of the bible. I should have said the EDITORS of the bible were more concerned with the control.
I wasn't talking about that book in general. Just commenting on "pile of sacrilegious hogwash" comment.
Yes, the long long long written lecture during the car chase was a bit much. I personally thought it was just an "ok" book. Certainly not worthy of all the praise that people heap on it.
Also, there wasn't anything new I learned there that I didn't know before. Not that I gleen my beliefs from novels...even ones written 2000 years ago.
No, not the myth of "those fishermen". I'm talking about "the church" and all the control and death and wars....take your pick.
How else could you control dirt poor people except by telling them you hold the key to their everlasting lives. Their immortal souls.
This crap actually has grown people beliving that there's this invisible man...and he lives in the sky! And he watches everything you do 24/7...every second, every act you do. And he has this list of 10 rules (with one being that you have to believe in him) and if you break these rules that he'll send you to a place of fire and pain and torture and suffering for ever and ever till the end of time....yet, he LOVES you! (Paraphrasing Carlin there).
But hey, you believe what you want. And I also wasn't talking about the novel in question. Both the bible and the other book are both novels really. Believe one but not the other. Does it really matter?
And yes, I really do know what I"m talking about. Ask me anything you want if you want to be enlightened.
Yes, things like facts, insight, logic, common sense tend to come across as sacrilegious to those that blindly follow something written 2000 years ago by a bunch of men.
Remember, God didn't fax the bible to mankind...it was written by a bunch of men wanting to control the masses. And for the past 2000 they did just that. But people are getting smarter and they know they're myths. It's dying out.
Yes, Renderman is the main rendererereerer of choice for many things.
The latest version of Photorealistic
Renderman (Pixar's actual product that they sell) supports true
raytracing now.
There are even open source Renderman renderererer called Pixie that is very
powerfull in it's own right.
But Finding Nemo is considered total animation and not special effects
per-se. Special Effects are for live action movies where there is
something needed to be added that only special effects could solve.
Expect to see Finding Nemo up for Best Animated Movie though.
It's interesting to note though that Pixar got the very first Oscar for
an animated short that was completely computer animated. Tin Toy!
I'm not left or right...and in fact I voted for Bush. You seem to be a tad defensive, I never said that the media only attacked Clinton and never attacked Bush. Quite the opposite.
But that the media attacks Bush shows my point. They attack Bush...they attacked Gore...they attacked Clinton...they attacked Dole.
Again, they smell blood in the water and they go after them...no matter who.
If the media was liberal, why didn't it protect it's liberal loved president?
Clinton was raked over the coals by this "liberal" media. Every day for like 6 months we had to go through every detail of every blow-job he ever had in his life.
Why? Because the sharks smelled blood in the water. They protect no one...if you're bleeding, you're ripped apart.
that's just it...there IS no other side of the story as far as The Media is concerned. If there was, they would report it.
Also, if those news organizations in Canada were to have a scandel, you can bet that the other news would pick up on it...blood in the water...sharks start a feeding frenzy that can't be stopped.
The so called liberal media sure didn't protect their liberal president when Clinton was dragged through the mud with the Monica Lewinski scandel...every day there were more and more lurid details paraded over the headlines and news reports...by ALL of the outlets.
It's a beast...it has no head...there is no one controlling it. At least here in America.
Also, as far as the "other side" there is also Al Jezera...but they aren't really saying anything different than anyone else...they just put on anyone that says anything. Same with the BBC etc etc.
I've come to the conclusion that there is no "liberal media" nor a "conservative media". It's just "The Media"
There is no view they're trying to push, no idea they want people to follow...they're a shark that feeds on itself and will eat anything and everything in it's way.
They only look at the almighty dollar and only care how many people are watching so they can sell their ads. That's the bottom line. They will report on anything and everything...the more sensational the better. Facts rarely enter into the fray...just so long as they have a headline.
The government doesn't control them because if that were true, then that in itself would be a major story...that "CNN has evidence that FOX is controlled by X" or vice versa. Remember, they eat anything and everything.
The scouring just wouldn't fit in the films...nor even in an extended version.
It has to do with pacing. The movies pace is all inportant. You have this HUGE battle in Gondor which lasts a long time...then you show the Hobbits going home and then ANOTHER battle at the end? I'm sorry, I would have cut this too. It's just too much.
I'm not talking length of movie either, it has to do with pacing.
People can seem to get it through their heads that not everything in a book is right for a film.
For instance, the elves showing up at Helms Deep was really raked over the coals by the book nazis. But as Jackson explains, he put that in there again as a pacing and as a small ray of hope. A very small group about to face a losing battle is joined by another small group...a glimmer of hope...yet the odds are still very much against them. It was a small touch that I think helped the movie. Of course, the "historians" out there will say it didn't happen that way. Well guess what...it didn't really happen anyway! Fiction...look into it.
The elves at helms deep added so much to that battle...and I agree with Jackson. I also agree with not filming the scouring.
I don't agree with not including Sauruman in RoTK though, that was an important ending for a villian we've seen in the last two movies. But that WAS filmed and will show up in the extended version.
The movies shown in the theaters pale quite a bit with the extended DVD versions by far.
But maybe it's best if we just look at the movies as standing on their own. They ARE The Lord of the Rings just as much as the books are. Seperate, but equal.
I mean, it's way too open...drab in that it's really empty. Look on a huge ship like an aircraft carrier and even THOSE interiors are crammed with stuff. Space is at a premium...even on a ship as big as the Galactica.
And no, I don't hold Star Trek in high regards in terms of production designs...well, maybe some of them. I would think a ship like the Nostromo from the original Alien would be a nice design in terms of space and equipment etc etc.
I haven't done any research...as I'm lazy. But the fx look very Lightwave-ish...but they zoom WAY too much...as if there's a camcorder out in space shooting everything.
Also, the production design leaves a lot to be desired...the ship interiors look really really drab.
The acting and direction is certainly better than the original series.
But all in all, I would say this should just stay a mini-series.
Slashdot Mirror
Mplayer is one of those apps I just can't live without on my machine. It handles just about anything and everything that I've thrown at it. I use it as my default mp3/movie player. And Quicktime movies are not a problem for Linux anymore.
/home/sgant/music/playlist -shuffle" and I've got hours and hours of back to back music. When I want something a little more structured, I have different playlists.
I quickly made a list of all of my 10+ gigs of mp3/m4a files just using find and grep...touched it up a bit in vim and then use "aterm -e mplayer -playlist
Yeah, I probably could do this with xmms...but why?
Give Mplayer it's due. It's a fine piece of software and they deserve all the recognition they get.
Yes, he is. It's getting to the point that he's starting to sound like one of those "Apple is dying, Apple doesn't have a future, Apple can't compete, Apple is dying" drones that go on year after year.
He seems to be trying to start that tradition now with Linux/Free/Open source software, even though it's going strong now for 10+ years and getting stronger and stronger.
The guy is a joke. And it's obvious no one who reads Forbes takes him seriously, as Linux still makes huge inroads to business.
No no, they're talking about Genetically Mutated carp.
Of course, if this means the carp will become Super Carp:
I for one welcome our Genetically Mutated Carp Overlords....
How are they working to increase market share and compete with the Wintel market?
Perhaps they're not even trying to compete anymore. I mean, they've shown they can co-exist with other computers in the world. I know many people that have both systems at home and work with both systems at work. It's no longer a "one or the other" problem for people. They've been going and going and going for decades. Decades! They may not have huge marketshare, but they're also not trying to take over the entire market like other companies.
Perhaps it's Nash's Equalibrium at work? Just a thought
I read that "review". From a Christian web site.
My take on it, desperate people trying desperatly to hang on to outdated ideas. Whenever these people try to argue something, they have to nitpick instead of looking at the overall picture. For instance that site says:
The implied view being addressed - that "the Bible arrived by fax from heaven" or "dropped out of the clouds" - is a tendentious straw man. The Bible was composed by men, yes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is never claimed, however, that this inspiration involved the Spirit taking any kind of unnatural force over the Bible's authors, much less that it fell from the clouds. Rather it is held that God chose specific instruments from men and that the Spirit guided them.
The problem with that argument is that they're trying to place into "fact" something that cannot ever be proved. That the bible was composed under inspiration of the spirit. How is this history? How is this a "fact"? Well, the bible says so! So it must be true!
Well, what's stopping God from inspiring someone today in the year of 2003 into writing another chapter of the bible? If they're "inspired" by god to write down a new gospel, would it get included into the bible now? Of course not, mental illness is handled better today as we've gained more insite into that disease. If we would treat someone like this today as mentally ill, then why are people so quick to jump to the conclusion that the people writting these things back then were perfectly sane? Faith? Ah...that slippery thing.
But hey, if you want to believe in an invisible man that lives in the sky, who am I to tell you you're crazy.
You're correct. I was refering more to The Church than the actual writers of the bible. I should have said the EDITORS of the bible were more concerned with the control.
I wasn't talking about that book in general. Just commenting on "pile of sacrilegious hogwash" comment.
Yes, the long long long written lecture during the car chase was a bit much. I personally thought it was just an "ok" book. Certainly not worthy of all the praise that people heap on it.
Also, there wasn't anything new I learned there that I didn't know before. Not that I gleen my beliefs from novels...even ones written 2000 years ago.
No, not the myth of "those fishermen". I'm talking about "the church" and all the control and death and wars....take your pick.
How else could you control dirt poor people except by telling them you hold the key to their everlasting lives. Their immortal souls.
This crap actually has grown people beliving that there's this invisible man...and he lives in the sky! And he watches everything you do 24/7...every second, every act you do. And he has this list of 10 rules (with one being that you have to believe in him) and if you break these rules that he'll send you to a place of fire and pain and torture and suffering for ever and ever till the end of time....yet, he LOVES you! (Paraphrasing Carlin there).
But hey, you believe what you want. And I also wasn't talking about the novel in question. Both the bible and the other book are both novels really. Believe one but not the other. Does it really matter?
And yes, I really do know what I"m talking about. Ask me anything you want if you want to be enlightened.
It's a pile of sacrilegious hog wash.
Yes, things like facts, insight, logic, common sense tend to come across as sacrilegious to those that blindly follow something written 2000 years ago by a bunch of men.
Remember, God didn't fax the bible to mankind...it was written by a bunch of men wanting to control the masses. And for the past 2000 they did just that. But people are getting smarter and they know they're myths. It's dying out.
Thank God!
Electric sheep, that's funny.
I wonder though, do androids dream of electric sheep?
I for one welcome our Robotic Duck Overlords....
Yes, Renderman is the main rendererereerer of choice for many things. The latest version of Photorealistic Renderman (Pixar's actual product that they sell) supports true raytracing now.
There are even open source Renderman renderererer called Pixie that is very powerfull in it's own right.
But Finding Nemo is considered total animation and not special effects per-se. Special Effects are for live action movies where there is something needed to be added that only special effects could solve. Expect to see Finding Nemo up for Best Animated Movie though.
It's interesting to note though that Pixar got the very first Oscar for an animated short that was completely computer animated. Tin Toy!
So you can be another minion in their army of hundreds and hundreds?... :)
Actually, this would apply more to ILM than to Weta. ILM, at least a few years ago, was more of a sweat-shop than anything else.
Just applied as a compositor/photoshop/cinepaint 2D artist.
Sitting by the phone, waiting for them to call and send me a ticket to move to New Zealand.
Gonna call any minute now.
Any minute now...
Tyler you took the words right out of my mouth...er...fingers...whatever.
Yes, Jackson deserves an Oscar...VERY much so. This will be looked at for years to come as how to do things right.
Not only did he direct it, which is monsterous in itself, but he was also one of the producers...which in itself if a monsterous thing.
There's a lot of love and care in those movies. They didn't go for the "fast buck" like so many other adaptations have.
Kudos to your reasons. You need to be modded up!
I'm not left or right...and in fact I voted for Bush. You seem to be a tad defensive, I never said that the media only attacked Clinton and never attacked Bush. Quite the opposite.
But that the media attacks Bush shows my point. They attack Bush...they attacked Gore...they attacked Clinton...they attacked Dole.
Again, they smell blood in the water and they go after them...no matter who.
Thanks for agreeing with me!
If the media was liberal, why didn't it protect it's liberal loved president?
Clinton was raked over the coals by this "liberal" media. Every day for like 6 months we had to go through every detail of every blow-job he ever had in his life.
Why? Because the sharks smelled blood in the water. They protect no one...if you're bleeding, you're ripped apart.
that's just it...there IS no other side of the story as far as The Media is concerned. If there was, they would report it.
Also, if those news organizations in Canada were to have a scandel, you can bet that the other news would pick up on it...blood in the water...sharks start a feeding frenzy that can't be stopped.
The so called liberal media sure didn't protect their liberal president when Clinton was dragged through the mud with the Monica Lewinski scandel...every day there were more and more lurid details paraded over the headlines and news reports...by ALL of the outlets.
It's a beast...it has no head...there is no one controlling it. At least here in America.
Also, as far as the "other side" there is also Al Jezera...but they aren't really saying anything different than anyone else...they just put on anyone that says anything. Same with the BBC etc etc.
But people want to see conspiricies everywhere.
I've come to the conclusion that there is no "liberal media" nor a "conservative media". It's just "The Media"
There is no view they're trying to push, no idea they want people to follow...they're a shark that feeds on itself and will eat anything and everything in it's way.
They only look at the almighty dollar and only care how many people are watching so they can sell their ads. That's the bottom line. They will report on anything and everything...the more sensational the better. Facts rarely enter into the fray...just so long as they have a headline.
The government doesn't control them because if that were true, then that in itself would be a major story...that "CNN has evidence that FOX is controlled by X" or vice versa. Remember, they eat anything and everything.
The scouring just wouldn't fit in the films...nor even in an extended version.
It has to do with pacing. The movies pace is all inportant. You have this HUGE battle in Gondor which lasts a long time...then you show the Hobbits going home and then ANOTHER battle at the end? I'm sorry, I would have cut this too. It's just too much.
I'm not talking length of movie either, it has to do with pacing.
People can seem to get it through their heads that not everything in a book is right for a film.
For instance, the elves showing up at Helms Deep was really raked over the coals by the book nazis. But as Jackson explains, he put that in there again as a pacing and as a small ray of hope. A very small group about to face a losing battle is joined by another small group...a glimmer of hope...yet the odds are still very much against them. It was a small touch that I think helped the movie. Of course, the "historians" out there will say it didn't happen that way. Well guess what...it didn't really happen anyway! Fiction...look into it.
The elves at helms deep added so much to that battle...and I agree with Jackson. I also agree with not filming the scouring.
I don't agree with not including Sauruman in RoTK though, that was an important ending for a villian we've seen in the last two movies. But that WAS filmed and will show up in the extended version.
The movies shown in the theaters pale quite a bit with the extended DVD versions by far.
But maybe it's best if we just look at the movies as standing on their own. They ARE The Lord of the Rings just as much as the books are. Seperate, but equal.
I perhaps didn't explain myself right.
I mean, it's way too open...drab in that it's really empty. Look on a huge ship like an aircraft carrier and even THOSE interiors are crammed with stuff. Space is at a premium...even on a ship as big as the Galactica.
And no, I don't hold Star Trek in high regards in terms of production designs...well, maybe some of them. I would think a ship like the Nostromo from the original Alien would be a nice design in terms of space and equipment etc etc.
I haven't done any research...as I'm lazy. But the fx look very Lightwave-ish...but they zoom WAY too much...as if there's a camcorder out in space shooting everything.
Also, the production design leaves a lot to be desired...the ship interiors look really really drab.
The acting and direction is certainly better than the original series.
But all in all, I would say this should just stay a mini-series.
Bingo...the chown-o
Sorry dude, but the Java Desktop is based, as you call it, on one of the "Wonder Twins".
Java Desktop is Gnome based.
And it's working great. That's 2 weeks without rebooting.
Now, I don't do anything critical or really strain the kernel at all, but it works great...never had one lick of trouble. It's also very peppy!
But for people running critical servers and the like, I can understand their reluctance.