I don't entirely agree. Some movies that are classed as sci-fi are actually adventure/horror/action films with technology used at important points.
I'd draw a difference between two films: The Terminator and Terminator 2. The Terminator counts more as sci-fi to me. It's about "what happens if?" and explores what unfolds from there. Terminator 2 is basically an action movie with some tech thrown in (albeit a very entertaining one).
Sci-fi at it's best imagines a world after some science arrives, and how it would impact. Take teleportation. If someone worked out how to do it, what happens to the transport industry? What happens to expensive city real estate?
I'm just curious about who will stay on film. For instance, at one time, there were tens of thousands of blacksmiths for all the people with horses. As the car replaced the horse, the mechanic replaced the blacksmith. There are still people doing it, but it's a tiny industry looking after people who ride horses for pleasure and the horse racing industry.
500 years ago, making swords would have been big business. Now, what's the sword-making industry's biggest customers? Probably professional fencers and movie makers.
I do wonder how much it's going to cost for companies like you to buy black and white film.
I'm not even sure how much craft photography is now not digital. How about Lord Patrick Lichfield? He shoots stuff like Pirelli calendars. With digital equipment.
He was interviewed on BBC radio and said that nearly all the pros he knows are using digital.
SLRs do give one thing - even if people are using the "point and shoot" mode - a view of what is being taken. That said, exploiting the modern SLR yields great results. Most people don't even seem to know that you can lock the autofocus subject, or how to use aperture settings to change depth of field.
I wouldn't start a kid on anything but digital, and preferably digital SLR. Digital point and shoot is certainly better than film point and shoot. You can review the results for one. With SLR you generally get manual focus, though.
Another thing is that you can take a lot more photos. I can happily take a drive and shoot 100 shots in the country, because I'm not counting cost. 100 shots of film is a decent amount of money - enough to consider the investment in a digital SLR worthwhile.
There are often products that survive mass market switches.
The only thing I wonder is whether digital will reach a point that it will simply be so much better than film, that no-one will use it.
In the cases of things surviving, it's either because people perceive something as better (like valve amps), built to spec (handmade furniture) or because the market has become more about enthusiasts (like people who still ride horses).
A much easier solution is to write a time travel movie with the words "string theory" embedded in it somewhere. Doesn't matter if it really applies or not.
You also can't watch them sequentially because having that knowledge of Vadar before watching ESB kinda kills the dramatic impact of what you hear at the end.
I was quite young when I saw ESB, and it was a real shocker.
He wants this story shown in a hundred years, unchanged, a Grim's fairy tale for the ages.
He's dreaming then. They are flashy crap. I watched EP1 recently, and it really felt dated. And it's what? 5 years old? 60 year old Errol Flynn movies have stood the test of time better.
It's also got Christopher Lloyd as the prof and it's in a DeLorean.
With all of that, would anyone sit there asking questions to themselves about how it works? We all know it's a load of technical crap, and as far as the story goes, you basically don't need to know.
It does however tell you some things for important story reasons - the speed, the plutonium and who he dealt with to get it.
Man, I wish people still made big story-driven movies that had characters you cared about instead of celeb opening opening/special effect driven high concept crap with a half-baked story.
Yes and no. You can certainly take a lot more free photos, which can help you. I don't really trust the screens on cameras. I've got a large enough card, so I edit back on the PC.
You can also learn about things like lighting/composition. Reading books/going to clubs/doing night classes can help to learn as well.
Home Theatre: You make a large capital investment (I've seen staggering costs).
Cinema: You make an ongoing payment
(so, depending on how much stuff you watch, how often you change it, YMMV).
Home Theatre: The phone works, the doorbell works, you get distracted by the things in the room.
Cinema: None of the above.
(the exception is irritating other patrons. Although I find that avoiding weekend showings means that you avoid teenagers with cellphones)
Home Theatre: 625 lines (here in the UK)
Cinema: much higher resolution.
For "event movies" like Spider-Man, Batman Begins etc., I definitely prefer the cinema. For comedy, drama, art house stuff, DVD/small screen does me fine. And for those, I can live without a DTS 5:1 system.
I think that it can help to take better photos. But it won't turn you into a Pro.
I do some amateur photography of landscapes, gardens and architecture. It gives me pleasure and saves on buying art.
But, I'm no pro, because when I see pro work, it's just got that edge.
The one thing that digital can help people with in getting good results is that the more shots you take, the more chance of a good one. And digital photography has a zero cost per shot. So, if you have talent and are prepared to put in the time to learn it, you may be able to get some great results.
Some photography (like wedding photography) has other skills. It's more like being a project manager.
An employee suggested to me that we hire Contrarian Slashdot Poster to give us feedback on certain products. I was skeptical at first but he explained the benefits of using it product evaluation. So I decided to let him write us some reports on operating systems/software/technology that might be fine. Besides, he seemed to be posting quite regularly on Slashdot, why not give him a try?
Once we'd got him a desk and a PC, we sat him down to write some product reports. At first it seemed fine, with him producing reports and lots of content.
Alas it did not stay that way. After a few days, I had lost count of the number of complaints received from users who found that his reports were basically dupes based on a template and that
we weren't getting any value. The final straw came when someone switched on the Clue filter, and we realised we'd been completely hoodwinked by a troll.
Needless to say, I fired the guy, and let's just say that I'm no longer with the organisation.
One bright light I've seen in OOo is in small businesses. I talked a few people into trying it and they use it. The problem with big businesses is that managers are often spending someone else's money, so don't care.
Ask a small business guy whether he cares about saving a few hundred pounds. It's his money.
I've used versions of Office since - bear in mind I write things like technical specifications - and when I have a choice, I use OOo because it does everything I need.
So, of all of those, it appears that 2 made more in gross than costs. And then, that's gross. Someone told me for a movie to break even, it had to take 3 times the costs in gross (I think that's a rough figure, you get these DVD sleepers that act as exceptions).
There's another way to think about it - you tell the world you've got testicular cancer, who listens?
If you are the CEO of a large company (OK, not A-league, but still, it's on slashdot) maybe you could actually get some recognition for it. Someone told me that male cancers (eg testicular, prostate) are now becoming a bigger health issue than breast cancer.
There's still quite a lot of jobs that I see as being replaced in IT. Some jobs are little more than administration, but because they are IT administration, they get paid a lot more than if they were administering car fleets.
It used to be the case that being a DBA was quite involved. Now, in a lot of companies there is no DBA. The designer does it all himself.
Incidentally, automation and globalisation have wiped out a lot of "blue collar" jobs. One result is that a lot of people who used to do those jobs are now doing other things that probably make them more marketable.
Why unions for that? Surely, it's either a job of government to provide it, or the employer. If you think it's down to employers, and you don't have it in your job, find someone who does.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd draw a difference between two films: The Terminator and Terminator 2. The Terminator counts more as sci-fi to me. It's about "what happens if?" and explores what unfolds from there. Terminator 2 is basically an action movie with some tech thrown in (albeit a very entertaining one).
Sci-fi at it's best imagines a world after some science arrives, and how it would impact. Take teleportation. If someone worked out how to do it, what happens to the transport industry? What happens to expensive city real estate?
I'm just curious about who will stay on film. For instance, at one time, there were tens of thousands of blacksmiths for all the people with horses. As the car replaced the horse, the mechanic replaced the blacksmith. There are still people doing it, but it's a tiny industry looking after people who ride horses for pleasure and the horse racing industry.
500 years ago, making swords would have been big business. Now, what's the sword-making industry's biggest customers? Probably professional fencers and movie makers.
I do wonder how much it's going to cost for companies like you to buy black and white film.
He was interviewed on BBC radio and said that nearly all the pros he knows are using digital.
SLRs do give one thing - even if people are using the "point and shoot" mode - a view of what is being taken. That said, exploiting the modern SLR yields great results. Most people don't even seem to know that you can lock the autofocus subject, or how to use aperture settings to change depth of field.
I wouldn't start a kid on anything but digital, and preferably digital SLR. Digital point and shoot is certainly better than film point and shoot. You can review the results for one. With SLR you generally get manual focus, though.
Another thing is that you can take a lot more photos. I can happily take a drive and shoot 100 shots in the country, because I'm not counting cost. 100 shots of film is a decent amount of money - enough to consider the investment in a digital SLR worthwhile.
The only thing I wonder is whether digital will reach a point that it will simply be so much better than film, that no-one will use it.
In the cases of things surviving, it's either because people perceive something as better (like valve amps), built to spec (handmade furniture) or because the market has become more about enthusiasts (like people who still ride horses).
A much easier solution is to write a time travel movie with the words "string theory" embedded in it somewhere. Doesn't matter if it really applies or not.
I was quite young when I saw ESB, and it was a real shocker.
He's dreaming then. They are flashy crap. I watched EP1 recently, and it really felt dated. And it's what? 5 years old? 60 year old Errol Flynn movies have stood the test of time better.
With all of that, would anyone sit there asking questions to themselves about how it works? We all know it's a load of technical crap, and as far as the story goes, you basically don't need to know.
It does however tell you some things for important story reasons - the speed, the plutonium and who he dealt with to get it.
Man, I wish people still made big story-driven movies that had characters you cared about instead of celeb opening opening/special effect driven high concept crap with a half-baked story.
You can also learn about things like lighting/composition. Reading books/going to clubs/doing night classes can help to learn as well.
Home Theatre: You make a large capital investment (I've seen staggering costs). Cinema: You make an ongoing payment (so, depending on how much stuff you watch, how often you change it, YMMV). Home Theatre: The phone works, the doorbell works, you get distracted by the things in the room. Cinema: None of the above. (the exception is irritating other patrons. Although I find that avoiding weekend showings means that you avoid teenagers with cellphones) Home Theatre: 625 lines (here in the UK) Cinema: much higher resolution. For "event movies" like Spider-Man, Batman Begins etc., I definitely prefer the cinema. For comedy, drama, art house stuff, DVD/small screen does me fine. And for those, I can live without a DTS 5:1 system.
I do some amateur photography of landscapes, gardens and architecture. It gives me pleasure and saves on buying art.
But, I'm no pro, because when I see pro work, it's just got that edge.
The one thing that digital can help people with in getting good results is that the more shots you take, the more chance of a good one. And digital photography has a zero cost per shot. So, if you have talent and are prepared to put in the time to learn it, you may be able to get some great results.
Some photography (like wedding photography) has other skills. It's more like being a project manager.
The French government will create lots of jobs through things like soft loans to their aerospace industry.
An employee suggested to me that we hire Contrarian Slashdot Poster to give us feedback on certain products. I was skeptical at first but he explained the benefits of using it product evaluation. So I decided to let him write us some reports on operating systems/software/technology that might be fine. Besides, he seemed to be posting quite regularly on Slashdot, why not give him a try?
Once we'd got him a desk and a PC, we sat him down to write some product reports. At first it seemed fine, with him producing reports and lots of content.
Alas it did not stay that way. After a few days, I had lost count of the number of complaints received from users who found that his reports were basically dupes based on a template and that we weren't getting any value. The final straw came when someone switched on the Clue filter, and we realised we'd been completely hoodwinked by a troll.
Needless to say, I fired the guy, and let's just say that I'm no longer with the organisation.
Ask a small business guy whether he cares about saving a few hundred pounds. It's his money.
I've used versions of Office since - bear in mind I write things like technical specifications - and when I have a choice, I use OOo because it does everything I need.
So, of all of those, it appears that 2 made more in gross than costs. And then, that's gross. Someone told me for a movie to break even, it had to take 3 times the costs in gross (I think that's a rough figure, you get these DVD sleepers that act as exceptions).
If you are the CEO of a large company (OK, not A-league, but still, it's on slashdot) maybe you could actually get some recognition for it. Someone told me that male cancers (eg testicular, prostate) are now becoming a bigger health issue than breast cancer.
I know a lot of companies who are trying it out. Turning boxes into firewalls, trying it out for fileservers - that sort of thing.
It's interesting that Independent Air is mentioned. They are also mentioned in a Microsoft case study on their website. See here
There's still quite a lot of jobs that I see as being replaced in IT. Some jobs are little more than administration, but because they are IT administration, they get paid a lot more than if they were administering car fleets.
It used to be the case that being a DBA was quite involved. Now, in a lot of companies there is no DBA. The designer does it all himself.
Incidentally, automation and globalisation have wiped out a lot of "blue collar" jobs. One result is that a lot of people who used to do those jobs are now doing other things that probably make them more marketable.
AKA A contract of employment.
Why unions for that? Surely, it's either a job of government to provide it, or the employer. If you think it's down to employers, and you don't have it in your job, find someone who does.