So what is this likelihood of long term negative effects of genetic engineering? Got any numbers? How about anecdotes? Everyone has a genetically engineered aunt or cousin, right? No? Well - how about any wild ideas as to what those negative effects could be? Ideas that won't get shot down immediately by... like... y'know... science guys...
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but such negative prognostication is a bit premature. So far, by all the data, genetic engineering poses no greater a threat than malicious Mars-men.
So according to what appears to be a circular argument, more caution is due when something goes wrong. So what's the point of being cautious if nothing has gone wrong so far ?
Yes, more caution is due after something goes wrong, because that indicates that you weren't being cautious enough, or nothing would have gone wrong.
When something goes wrong, that sets a 'precedent' upon which to assess the risk and gauge the appropriate amount of caution to exercise.
With no precedent for GM pets (or GM foods, for that matter) causing harm, and no plausible hypothetical mechanism for causing harm, only cursory caution is due.
The lay public is calling for a far higher level of caution than demonstrably is warranted, if you ask me, and I think that's probably because the lay public is easily frightened by long words (especially long words what's all scientifical-soundin') and easily led by the environmentalist movement.
Personally I want a hypoallergenic tabby-cat with fluorescent stripes. I envisage many a relaxing evening spent watching kitty chase fluorescent mice under black-light.
My point would be we are all ignorant of the long term effects of rampant and unchecked use of genetic modifacation.
We're also ignorant of the long term effects of going to Mars.
Also of the long term effects of rampant and unchecked use of optical mice. Did you know that optical mice pump out enormous quantities of electromagnetic radiation? That's ray-ay-ay-diation, folks! Did I mention the electromagnetic bit? That's gotta be dangerous too. I mean - it certainly sounds dangerous - especially because I prefaced it with "rampant and unchecked", huh?
My point (before I forget it) is that ignorance is not a good reason to hold back; rather it's a pretty good reason to forge ahead, with due caution, of course.
Oh - did I type due hard enough there? That's a pretty useful word - it makes caution that much more meaningful. And that's the thing - the science (and industry) of genetic engineering is forging ahead, with due caution. Until something actually goes wrong (like - oops - the fluorescence gene turns the fish into flying glow-in-the-dark killers) any more caution would be undue.
At least all of the Shake compositing was done on Macs and I guess they used Macs for a large portion of the photoshop work too.
What makes you think any of it was done on a Mac?
Shake is now owned by Apple, but it's been around on Windows and Linux PCs for yonks (a yonk is a measure of time, y'all). Shake still exists for Windows and Linux, but Apple have pulled back support for those versions. Support for those versions was just fine, however, for most of the duration (five years) of the project in question.
The 3D software mentioned in the article is all exclusive to Windows PCs. There are no Mac versions. Assuming every desk in the studio had a computer of some description on (or under) it, the studio managers would have wanted to be absolutely sure that every machine was available for rendering. Except the Flame, of course, which is a different (not a Mac either) beast.
Can't render on a Mac. A Mac has no unique value in a VFX/animation studio. PCs are cheaper, faster and easier to connect to other the other PCs, which of course you need for the 3D work.
How can you judge Wintel use? RTFA, use common sense.
Based on the trailer, the story looks like a typical, derivative hero's journey. I loved the formula in the Matrix, because it was presented with a new spin. If Kaena will be anything like the trailer, I'll shut my brain off at the door.
Don't lie; people will catch you out. You've clearly shut your brain off already.
PDI, BlueSky and Pixar's films are every bit as formulaic. Buddy banter, rescue subplots and a heart-wrenching song in the middle. The same is true of most of Disney's cel-animated features. What exactly bothers you about the idea that a forthcoming 3D animated feature may also follow the traditional Quest storyline? So what if Kaena's just a poor sap farmer's daughter, bound by destiny to fulfil some prophecy or another... Who isn't?
Pixar films are filled with interesting, dynamic characters. Their stories work regardless of the medium. I was watching their older shorts on their website the other day, and most of them are still entertaining even though the technology is long obsolete.
It doesn't do your arguments any good to alternate between criticising technical aspects of Xilam's first feature film and praising Pixar's early shorts in spite of their primitive technology.
The simple fact of the matter is that Xilam (and Chaman) have done a very cool thing: they've completed a film that looks to be what FF:TSW should have been, on a fraction of the budget.
With off-the-shelf software, on Windows PCs, no less.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It's genuinely white.
So what is this likelihood of long term negative effects of genetic engineering? Got any numbers? How about anecdotes? Everyone has a genetically engineered aunt or cousin, right? No? Well - how about any wild ideas as to what those negative effects could be? Ideas that won't get shot down immediately by... like... y'know... science guys...
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but such negative prognostication is a bit premature. So far, by all the data, genetic engineering poses no greater a threat than malicious Mars-men.
Yes, more caution is due after something goes wrong, because that indicates that you weren't being cautious enough, or nothing would have gone wrong.
When something goes wrong, that sets a 'precedent' upon which to assess the risk and gauge the appropriate amount of caution to exercise.
With no precedent for GM pets (or GM foods, for that matter) causing harm, and no plausible hypothetical mechanism for causing harm, only cursory caution is due.
The lay public is calling for a far higher level of caution than demonstrably is warranted, if you ask me, and I think that's probably because the lay public is easily frightened by long words (especially long words what's all scientifical-soundin') and easily led by the environmentalist movement.
Personally I want a hypoallergenic tabby-cat with fluorescent stripes. I envisage many a relaxing evening spent watching kitty chase fluorescent mice under black-light.
We're also ignorant of the long term effects of going to Mars.
Also of the long term effects of rampant and unchecked use of optical mice. Did you know that optical mice pump out enormous quantities of electromagnetic radiation? That's ray-ay-ay-diation, folks! Did I mention the electromagnetic bit? That's gotta be dangerous too. I mean - it certainly sounds dangerous - especially because I prefaced it with "rampant and unchecked", huh?
My point (before I forget it) is that ignorance is not a good reason to hold back; rather it's a pretty good reason to forge ahead, with due caution, of course.
Oh - did I type due hard enough there? That's a pretty useful word - it makes caution that much more meaningful. And that's the thing - the science (and industry) of genetic engineering is forging ahead, with due caution. Until something actually goes wrong (like - oops - the fluorescence gene turns the fish into flying glow-in-the-dark killers) any more caution would be undue.
I love having a pressure-sensitive keyboard.
What makes you think any of it was done on a Mac?
Shake is now owned by Apple, but it's been around on Windows and Linux PCs for yonks (a yonk is a measure of time, y'all). Shake still exists for Windows and Linux, but Apple have pulled back support for those versions. Support for those versions was just fine, however, for most of the duration (five years) of the project in question.
The 3D software mentioned in the article is all exclusive to Windows PCs. There are no Mac versions. Assuming every desk in the studio had a computer of some description on (or under) it, the studio managers would have wanted to be absolutely sure that every machine was available for rendering. Except the Flame, of course, which is a different (not a Mac either) beast.
Can't render on a Mac. A Mac has no unique value in a VFX/animation studio. PCs are cheaper, faster and easier to connect to other the other PCs, which of course you need for the 3D work.
How can you judge Wintel use? RTFA, use common sense.
Common sense is now available at Fry's.
PDI, BlueSky and Pixar's films are every bit as formulaic. Buddy banter, rescue subplots and a heart-wrenching song in the middle. The same is true of most of Disney's cel-animated features. What exactly bothers you about the idea that a forthcoming 3D animated feature may also follow the traditional Quest storyline? So what if Kaena's just a poor sap farmer's daughter, bound by destiny to fulfil some prophecy or another... Who isn't? It doesn't do your arguments any good to alternate between criticising technical aspects of Xilam's first feature film and praising Pixar's early shorts in spite of their primitive technology. The simple fact of the matter is that Xilam (and Chaman) have done a very cool thing: they've completed a film that looks to be what FF:TSW should have been, on a fraction of the budget.
With off-the-shelf software, on Windows PCs, no less.