Wow, the gasoline I just bought must be super extra-special gasoline... A $1000 Athlon system will wipe the floor with a top of the line G5 system costing over $3000.
Wow, what kind of gasoline are you using to make your Athlon run so fast??? I should warn you though. Don't be surprised if your machine spontaneously combusts any second now.
No one will argue that iPods aren't expensive, but to say they are overpriced is certainly up for debate. In fact, I remember an old slashdot story talking about this very issue and pointed to an article on arstechnica. Found the article here.
My point exactly. The fluctuation in prices is due to payment of distribution rights and, I would think, mostly due to the existance of physical barriers and distances separating each country/market. These physical barriers do not exist within the Internet.
And when the US iTunes store has albums available from, for example, Robbie Williams (an European artist for those who don't know), does Apple have a pay again to distribute that album in their Europe iTunes store? I don't know the answer, but it wouldn't surprise me if the answer was yes.
Worldwide, the music industry's pricing models are out of date in a time when everyone is connected to the Internet. And if they are unwilling to offer their music globally at a single flat rate, I know of at least one other service that does...Gnutella clients. The sad reality is that, illegitimate or not, piracy has become their main competitor. They need to start competing and stop oligopolizing, or there will be a lot of hurting going around.
This is the second time I've seen this in two days. Google for "Song of the piracy apologist" on slashdot and you'll be amazed. Moderators: please mod this back down.
What I have a hard time understanding is why the inconsistency in pricing. The Internet is worldwide. It's not any harder or doesn't take any longer if I access Napster from the US or the UK. There are no physical mediums to transport, no physical distances that stand between you and your music. I would think in theory Napster shouldn't price the music any differently for each country. Yeah, yeah, I know that there are different royalities to be paid in each country, etc, etc, etc, but I think this just highlights how out of date the worldwide music industry is.
In other words the animation just needs to be consistent. It can be consistently bad or consistently good so as long as it is consistent throughout the film. That way, you'll get over whatever first impressions you have of the animation and move on to immerse yourself in the story without being distracted by inconsistent animation quality (assuming the story is any good of course).
The animation in FF may have been fluid but it wasn't natural. And that was the problem. Shrek 2 also has some problems with movement as well (particularly noticeable when the characters are walking), but I am looking forward to seeing what The Incredibles can make of human movement. The trailer looks promising, and, somehow, I believe Pixar will pull through.
Oh, c'mon, it is The Incredibles, not The Impossibles. This name is even featured in the story.
Well, I read the article last night, and it sounded like some (or a lot) of the stuff Brad Bird (director) wanted to do with The Incredibles was deemed nearly impossible. So perhaps it was a freudian slip.... Overall a very interesting read. An interesting short section on the difficulties he had with one of the characters with long hair and how not to make her look like she had tentacles growing out of her head.
What I didn't understand was that if you're going to make a movie with characters that look like real humans, why not use real humans. It seems like the makers of FF made the characters look human so to fuel their own ego ("see, we can make CG look human!") than it was to propel a good story. And that was probably their biggest mistake. They were focusing on the wrong thing and paid dearly for it.
One of the most impressive things to me from Finding Nemo wasn't so much how it looked. It was how it moved. That's one of the things I was disappointed in with Shrek 2. A lot of the characters didn't feel like they had a physical presence in their own world. I can't exactly explain it, but it felt like I was watching puppets instead of actual characters. The characters in Shrek 2 many times moved like puppets (was especially noticable when they were walking). The horses in the beginning looked as if they were floating off the ground.
But in the end, it comes down to the sensations a film can draw out of me. In Finding Nemo when they went zipping through the jet stream, I felt the rush. In Shrek 2, I felt nothing.
Watching Shark Tale's trailer before Shrek 2 (same animation group who did Shrek is doing that), it became apparent the difference between PDI/Dreamworks and Pixar. Granted I know it is difficult to animate water environments well, but either Pixar did an extremely good job with Finding Nemo or Dreamworks is doing a not so good job with Shark Tale.
I'm a 3d artist, I can spot half-assedness in a movie like this, yet nothing stood out at me in that movie.
So what does that say about you?;-)
Re:State of the art?
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First off, I'm going to say that I have to disagree with you. Though Shrek 2 was an enjoyable movie, I certainly would not go around praising its animation. They're just not up to Pixar's level (yet). I'm not going to argue with you point for point why Shrek's animation wasn't all that great and why Finding Nemo was just insane animation wise, but to address your point on water being just water...quoted from the lastest issue of Wired
"One frame in Finding Nemo, distributed across Pixar's 2,000-processor render farm, took 10 hours to render - and lasted just 1/24 of a second on screen. 'You've got millions of fish, each of them with scales, and there's murk in the water that's refracting light from the sun and reflections from the coral'..."
But it's only just water. Please do give credit where credit is due. Thanks.
It's interesting that you mentioned the need to diversify. Yes, it's true that Google offers multiple services, but the majority of these services are heavly reliant on Google's search technology. So while they have been diversifying in products and services, they haven't (at least publicly) really diversified outside their current search technology. Is that a good thing? Maybe, maybe not.
This article states that while the search business is very lucritive it is also very difficult to defend. That goes on the assumption that once someone else comes out with a better search technology, users would easily switch. Then again, Google's search technology really is quite good, so why not use it to the max where it's applicable? It'll be interesting to see how the search market pans out in the next couple of years and to see if Microsoft can do to Google what Google did to Altavista (or perhaps a better analogy is if Microsoft can pull a "Netscape" on Google).
Personnaly, I liked A Bug's Life more than Nemo - and have been wondering why there has been no Bug's Life follow-on
Probably because with Toy Story 2, Disney didn't honor that film as part of the 5-movie deal between Disney and Pixar since it was a "sequel." Hence, no more sequels since.
I've been downloading/viewing trailers online for years now, and aside from the prerequisite Quicktime format, I have not had to download anything. Why now must I download iTunes to view the "Incredisize" trailer?
Apparently you haven't seen enough trailers then. They use to require Quickime Pro to view fullscreen trailers. So now, instead of having to upgrade for $29.99, you just install a free jukebox. Sounds good to me.
Actually, if I recall correctly, I believe the Saturn and the Playstation were suppose to be released at the same time, but Sega got scared and try to pull one over Sony by getting out to market a little early.
It seems to me that Java Desktop is the same concept as Windows 3.0: A GUI program manager on top of an operating system.
Wasn't Windows 95, 98, and Me the same thing with the exception that they hid MSDOS better? And if I remember correctly, Java Desktop actually uses Red Hat as a base and no more. I.E. Java Desktop shouldn't require Red Hat anymore than Mandrake requires Red Hat.
SO what you are saying is Novell since Redhat have pretty much given up.
I'm pretty sure Red Hat has not abandoned the corporate desktop linux market, just the consumer desktop linux market. The average non-techie may very well go to work in the near future and use Red Hat rather than Windows. And depending on how successful Red Hat is at this, they may revive the consumer desktop edition. Until then, I believe Fedora is available.
They are probably trying to reduce the amount of effort (and training costs) needed to retrain users that are familar with Windows. Usability is all about having an interface that does what users expect. Right now, they expect it to act like Windows.
Sony did their part is taking the lead in the console market, but it's not like Sega or Nintendo gave them much of a fight. The only company that had a chance was Sega. Nintendo didn't release their N64 until 2-3 years after Playstation launched (far to late to play catchup). And Sega, who ruled the 16-bit consoles with Genesis, somehow managed to release the Sega CD and 32X systems before Saturn's launch in their attempt to milk the Genesis market and in retrospect alienated a lot of their customers.
Furthermore, even though Sega's arcade divisions were the first to crank out 3D games such as Virtua Fighter, Virtua Racing, and Daytona, the Saturn design team, who for whatever the reason didn't notice the arrival of 3D gaming, focused on making the Saturn a 2D monster and was completely sideswiped by the Playstation's 3D capabilities.
And on top of all that, charging $400 for the Saturn against the $300 Playstation didn't help either. So like I said, I give props to Sony for dominating the console market, but Sega and Nintendo did a lot to dig their own graves.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, the gasoline I just bought must be super extra-special gasoline ... A $1000 Athlon system will wipe the floor with a top of the line G5 system costing over $3000.
Wow, what kind of gasoline are you using to make your Athlon run so fast??? I should warn you though. Don't be surprised if your machine spontaneously combusts any second now.
No one will argue that iPods aren't expensive, but to say they are overpriced is certainly up for debate. In fact, I remember an old slashdot story talking about this very issue and pointed to an article on arstechnica. Found the article here.
My point exactly. The fluctuation in prices is due to payment of distribution rights and, I would think, mostly due to the existance of physical barriers and distances separating each country/market. These physical barriers do not exist within the Internet.
And when the US iTunes store has albums available from, for example, Robbie Williams (an European artist for those who don't know), does Apple have a pay again to distribute that album in their Europe iTunes store? I don't know the answer, but it wouldn't surprise me if the answer was yes.
Worldwide, the music industry's pricing models are out of date in a time when everyone is connected to the Internet. And if they are unwilling to offer their music globally at a single flat rate, I know of at least one other service that does...Gnutella clients. The sad reality is that, illegitimate or not, piracy has become their main competitor. They need to start competing and stop oligopolizing, or there will be a lot of hurting going around.
This is the second time I've seen this in two days. Google for "Song of the piracy apologist" on slashdot and you'll be amazed. Moderators: please mod this back down.
What I have a hard time understanding is why the inconsistency in pricing. The Internet is worldwide. It's not any harder or doesn't take any longer if I access Napster from the US or the UK. There are no physical mediums to transport, no physical distances that stand between you and your music. I would think in theory Napster shouldn't price the music any differently for each country. Yeah, yeah, I know that there are different royalities to be paid in each country, etc, etc, etc, but I think this just highlights how out of date the worldwide music industry is.
In other words the animation just needs to be consistent. It can be consistently bad or consistently good so as long as it is consistent throughout the film. That way, you'll get over whatever first impressions you have of the animation and move on to immerse yourself in the story without being distracted by inconsistent animation quality (assuming the story is any good of course).
The animation in FF may have been fluid but it wasn't natural. And that was the problem. Shrek 2 also has some problems with movement as well (particularly noticeable when the characters are walking), but I am looking forward to seeing what The Incredibles can make of human movement. The trailer looks promising, and, somehow, I believe Pixar will pull through.
Oh, c'mon, it is The Incredibles, not The Impossibles. This name is even featured in the story.
... Overall a very interesting read. An interesting short section on the difficulties he had with one of the characters with long hair and how not to make her look like she had tentacles growing out of her head.
Well, I read the article last night, and it sounded like some (or a lot) of the stuff Brad Bird (director) wanted to do with The Incredibles was deemed nearly impossible. So perhaps it was a freudian slip.
What I didn't understand was that if you're going to make a movie with characters that look like real humans, why not use real humans. It seems like the makers of FF made the characters look human so to fuel their own ego ("see, we can make CG look human!") than it was to propel a good story. And that was probably their biggest mistake. They were focusing on the wrong thing and paid dearly for it.
One of the most impressive things to me from Finding Nemo wasn't so much how it looked. It was how it moved. That's one of the things I was disappointed in with Shrek 2. A lot of the characters didn't feel like they had a physical presence in their own world. I can't exactly explain it, but it felt like I was watching puppets instead of actual characters. The characters in Shrek 2 many times moved like puppets (was especially noticable when they were walking). The horses in the beginning looked as if they were floating off the ground.
But in the end, it comes down to the sensations a film can draw out of me. In Finding Nemo when they went zipping through the jet stream, I felt the rush. In Shrek 2, I felt nothing.
Watching Shark Tale's trailer before Shrek 2 (same animation group who did Shrek is doing that), it became apparent the difference between PDI/Dreamworks and Pixar. Granted I know it is difficult to animate water environments well, but either Pixar did an extremely good job with Finding Nemo or Dreamworks is doing a not so good job with Shark Tale.
It says I had a bumpy road getting to where I am today. ;)
Don't you mean bump "mapped" road? Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Was it not DreamWorks that was behind pirates of the carabian?
No, I'm pretty sure it was Lucas' ILM.
I'm a 3d artist, I can spot half-assedness in a movie like this, yet nothing stood out at me in that movie.
;-)
So what does that say about you?
It's interesting that you mentioned the need to diversify. Yes, it's true that Google offers multiple services, but the majority of these services are heavly reliant on Google's search technology. So while they have been diversifying in products and services, they haven't (at least publicly) really diversified outside their current search technology. Is that a good thing? Maybe, maybe not.
This article states that while the search business is very lucritive it is also very difficult to defend. That goes on the assumption that once someone else comes out with a better search technology, users would easily switch. Then again, Google's search technology really is quite good, so why not use it to the max where it's applicable? It'll be interesting to see how the search market pans out in the next couple of years and to see if Microsoft can do to Google what Google did to Altavista (or perhaps a better analogy is if Microsoft can pull a "Netscape" on Google).
Actually, it's because there was a deal between Pixar and Disney that still needs to be honored. One more movie, Cars, and that'll be it.
Personnaly, I liked A Bug's Life more than Nemo - and have been wondering why there has been no Bug's Life follow-on
Probably because with Toy Story 2, Disney didn't honor that film as part of the 5-movie deal between Disney and Pixar since it was a "sequel." Hence, no more sequels since.
I've been downloading/viewing trailers online for years now, and aside from the prerequisite Quicktime format, I have not had to download anything. Why now must I download iTunes to view the "Incredisize" trailer?
Apparently you haven't seen enough trailers then. They use to require Quickime Pro to view fullscreen trailers. So now, instead of having to upgrade for $29.99, you just install a free jukebox. Sounds good to me.
Actually, if I recall correctly, I believe the Saturn and the Playstation were suppose to be released at the same time, but Sega got scared and try to pull one over Sony by getting out to market a little early.
It seems to me that Java Desktop is the same concept as Windows 3.0: A GUI program manager on top of an operating system.
Wasn't Windows 95, 98, and Me the same thing with the exception that they hid MSDOS better? And if I remember correctly, Java Desktop actually uses Red Hat as a base and no more. I.E. Java Desktop shouldn't require Red Hat anymore than Mandrake requires Red Hat.
SO what you are saying is Novell since Redhat have pretty much given up.
I'm pretty sure Red Hat has not abandoned the corporate desktop linux market, just the consumer desktop linux market. The average non-techie may very well go to work in the near future and use Red Hat rather than Windows. And depending on how successful Red Hat is at this, they may revive the consumer desktop edition. Until then, I believe Fedora is available.
Could they make it look any more like Windows
They are probably trying to reduce the amount of effort (and training costs) needed to retrain users that are familar with Windows. Usability is all about having an interface that does what users expect. Right now, they expect it to act like Windows.
Sony did their part is taking the lead in the console market, but it's not like Sega or Nintendo gave them much of a fight. The only company that had a chance was Sega. Nintendo didn't release their N64 until 2-3 years after Playstation launched (far to late to play catchup). And Sega, who ruled the 16-bit consoles with Genesis, somehow managed to release the Sega CD and 32X systems before Saturn's launch in their attempt to milk the Genesis market and in retrospect alienated a lot of their customers.
Furthermore, even though Sega's arcade divisions were the first to crank out 3D games such as Virtua Fighter, Virtua Racing, and Daytona, the Saturn design team, who for whatever the reason didn't notice the arrival of 3D gaming, focused on making the Saturn a 2D monster and was completely sideswiped by the Playstation's 3D capabilities.
And on top of all that, charging $400 for the Saturn against the $300 Playstation didn't help either. So like I said, I give props to Sony for dominating the console market, but Sega and Nintendo did a lot to dig their own graves.
So, my question is, what the heck does Apple do when they run out of large cat names for their OS?
I'd say they should just move up the food chain to humans.
example
10.40 (Steve B.)
10.41 (Bill G.)
10.42 (Steve J.)
etc, etc, etc.