They were there attending a neighbouring property, for it to not catch fire. A pretty fast way to do that ("had there been a fire in the city...") would be to put down the fire; not waiting for it to mostly wind down itself to safe levels. That also means the whole "action" took large part of nominal costs already (but if they did do something, there could be an additional bill for putting down the fire of somebody "uninsured" instead of relying only on their pretty much fixed funds)
And why do you think there was any step at all from one to two?... They are the same thing.
I'd say the burden of proof might be much more on you to show that stable (not the same as "good"!) systems of governance are not some very ingrained parts of a society (most importantly - show what are they the result of, if not societal dynamics?). And by doing that somehow discard, evident everywhere, simple slow rates of changes; with most of notable ones taking at least a generation or two - surely a coincidence, nothing to do with those people... (and FYI, I'm from a place which was put behind the Iron Curtain (raped, so to speak, few times before that particular half a century, too) and I still can say all of the above; the regimes drew virtually exclusively from countrymen, many of their fallings were a clear continuation of certain trends (also from nominally opposing traditions!) or stemming from customs present among "common folks") You really think it's inconcievable for average members of societies to (using your example) crave, when it comes deep down to it (of course they will claim something different(*)), even somewhat "imaginary" resources?
(*)A stark/sad example was one roommate of mine at uni, from one place which should better remain unnamed - but still quite impoverished and corrupt one. We watched together BBC reports of a major turmoil at his place (due to election fraud, but also general venting IMHO). He was of course outspoken critic of rampant corruption at his place among top officials, which was of course the root of all evil... But what was he doing? Studying comfortably in a decently well-off place (funds sent by his family at a position of public office), aiming for a useless diploma (while cheating) and with a future position at...a public office guaranteed (where certainly almost everyone wanted to end) And he was fed up with all the corruption.
Condescending tone was generally at a typical (not any failing in particular at all, we humans are practically programmed to do it) naivety of finding a convenient & visible group to distance oneself from, put on them a lot more blame than they deserve for all the evils of the world, and dreaming how wonderful it would be if only everybody would follow our few simple ideas. It does feel nice...
US gov is generally a reflection of its society, don't kid yourself otherwise (from where do you think come people forming federal structures? Where are their relatives and friends? How do values of "ordinary folks" work when its their turn to "squander" a bit?). Its "destabilising" actions being ultimatelly a will of the society; neccessary to, for example, sustain levels of consumptionism. All funds at its disposal go towards maintaining that society.
Yes, yes, because they don't contribute at all to the generally quite nice state of the society; allowing its members to "seek opportunities" freely, etc....
"Practical" would be quickly offering to the guy an option of firmly declaring, with his signature, that he will cover the costs of firefighting action. Somebody distressed with a house fire might really appreciate such suggestion. One which firefighters apparently didn't make; very much mean, I'd say.
Ehh, was it so long after you've last seen '"analogue print" photos'? You know, a rectangular piece of photographic paper, permanently displaying a photograph. Often kept in purpose-made albums, though people like to also put them on refrigerators. As happened in Avatar (fridge in the small camp); what was virtually the only type of photograph in that world. Similarly with displays (not "live action") or video recordings in the setting - they are basically "2D" for all intents and purposes; the only really "3D" display, in setting, shows CGI (the volumetric map display).
For all the advanced tech in that movie (interstellar travel, hibernation, insane energy densities, neuroimaging & "neurolinking", far improved materials science, etc.), the display technology is quite primitive - barely surpassing what we already have, partly inferior to what the premiere of Avatar promoted, and almost certainly will be surpassed by real world technology far before any significant numbers of humans venture outside of Earth orbit (where was something as basic, straightforward and probably doable quite soon as, say, contact lenses giving augmented view of the world? A spiced up HUD, basically) - c'mon, science fiction films were better than that for a long time (having volumetric recordings of characters or even communication systems of such type, for example).
What's really telling - Avatar had some in-setting "analogue print" photos. On a fridge (a better one, sure - one with a window, I'd like to see some consumer ones like that - but still a fridge). And the only screen really utilising 3D, in the setting of the film, never displayed recorded images, just (in setting) CGI imagery. Almost a parody of itself.
Would be hilarious if Cameron largely tries to push cheap 3D tech for some other purpose (doesn't he have physics background? Many research disciplines should benefit, especially some "cool" or those revving up recently; also general info/educational purpose...), but knows what is the only way to get the industry onboard.
Other than that - 3D photography is just a few years younger from "normal" one, with good effect achievable for around 150 years...and hardly anybody cares. Aside from cases where stereoscopy should introduce some actually useful info, "3D" films seem to add mostly another imperfect way of seeing depth information...one which might essentially fight at times with another system of interpratation our brains are already using.
Plus from what I see, a semi-darkened room and decent projector seems to give the nicest feel to a lot of people... (maybe that's conditioning, maybe not) Now, only for some decent LED ones to show up...
Are you really sure it's a good idea to rely in ATC on an effect which is so subtle and not terribly accurate between viewers? (shouldn't we move away from subjectivity of single human operators in this field, away from the model that's half a century old and didn't really shift to what technology could allow already?)
Huh, did we somehow get back to the Roaring Twenties? (note how the title "The Man From M.A.R.S." suggests something stranegly similar to...). Or if one insists on something widely used, for a time... (note what was used during the "golden era" and later Stereovision - w00t, the disco will soon return?)
Besides, the stereographic sister of photography is only a few years younger than the latter; easily done for a long, long time to a satisfactory level of quality. And for one and a half of a century...still hardly anybody cares, except for a novelty factor.
I was kinda hoping for those 3D glasses to become a fashion accessory soon, would be slightly fun;p
Would there be much use for the parallax approach? Except in handheld devices perhaps, people wouldn't really like to change their position in relation to the screen to see something "nice" (the other plausible scenario would be screens with ads, etc. in public space, but only when/if it can deal with many pairs of eyes). And even there it translates much better to CGI generated on the fly than to displaying recorded images / cinematographic approach (even more serious in volumetric displays; it's not a coincidence that the only "true" 3D display in Avatar showed what is even in its setting a generated CGI)
Well, otoh one of two scenarios leading to what he meant was "we will wipe ourselves out" (and my overall point about how extrapolating progress like that has...issues)
And generally - do people even care about constellations all that much? (they sure don't care about how almost all the stars basically dissapeared behind light pollution) How many people care about your rhino, or even "objective" monkey face for that matter?;)
Slashdot Mirror
If only we could opt, sometimes, for quite quick & easy solutions to problems instead of pointing fingers...
That's basically a broken window fallacy.
They were there attending a neighbouring property, for it to not catch fire. A pretty fast way to do that ("had there been a fire in the city...") would be to put down the fire; not waiting for it to mostly wind down itself to safe levels. That also means the whole "action" took large part of nominal costs already (but if they did do something, there could be an additional bill for putting down the fire of somebody "uninsured" instead of relying only on their pretty much fixed funds)
So why save some property when its owner has paid $75?
And why do you think there was any step at all from one to two?... They are the same thing.
I'd say the burden of proof might be much more on you to show that stable (not the same as "good"!) systems of governance are not some very ingrained parts of a society (most importantly - show what are they the result of, if not societal dynamics?). And by doing that somehow discard, evident everywhere, simple slow rates of changes; with most of notable ones taking at least a generation or two - surely a coincidence, nothing to do with those people... (and FYI, I'm from a place which was put behind the Iron Curtain (raped, so to speak, few times before that particular half a century, too) and I still can say all of the above; the regimes drew virtually exclusively from countrymen, many of their fallings were a clear continuation of certain trends (also from nominally opposing traditions!) or stemming from customs present among "common folks")
You really think it's inconcievable for average members of societies to (using your example) crave, when it comes deep down to it (of course they will claim something different(*)), even somewhat "imaginary" resources?
(*)A stark/sad example was one roommate of mine at uni, from one place which should better remain unnamed - but still quite impoverished and corrupt one. We watched together BBC reports of a major turmoil at his place (due to election fraud, but also general venting IMHO). He was of course outspoken critic of rampant corruption at his place among top officials, which was of course the root of all evil...
But what was he doing? Studying comfortably in a decently well-off place (funds sent by his family at a position of public office), aiming for a useless diploma (while cheating) and with a future position at...a public office guaranteed (where certainly almost everyone wanted to end)
And he was fed up with all the corruption.
Condescending tone was generally at a typical (not any failing in particular at all, we humans are practically programmed to do it) naivety of finding a convenient & visible group to distance oneself from, put on them a lot more blame than they deserve for all the evils of the world, and dreaming how wonderful it would be if only everybody would follow our few simple ideas. It does feel nice...
Yes, I know, "it's their fault! We, the People, are noble!" (what movements does that remind me?...)
US gov is generally a reflection of its society, don't kid yourself otherwise (from where do you think come people forming federal structures? Where are their relatives and friends? How do values of "ordinary folks" work when its their turn to "squander" a bit?). Its "destabilising" actions being ultimatelly a will of the society; neccessary to, for example, sustain levels of consumptionism. All funds at its disposal go towards maintaining that society.
Yes, yes, because they don't contribute at all to the generally quite nice state of the society; allowing its members to "seek opportunities" freely, etc....
Ah, so getting less out of what you pay is fine, glad you cleared that up.
Hm, so you really don't get how ultimatelly you will be covering greater consequences of the lack of responsibility of such "firefighters"...
You know, if one looks at prisons as workcamps...
...because it's so easy to think in polarising extremes.
...success which greatly relies on the general state of society at large, its basic infrastructure. I wonder what could be the way to finance those.
"Practical" would be quickly offering to the guy an option of firmly declaring, with his signature, that he will cover the costs of firefighting action. Somebody distressed with a house fire might really appreciate such suggestion. One which firefighters apparently didn't make; very much mean, I'd say.
They were already at the scene. The basic human decency calls for pointing their sprinklers at the house (they even might/should bill for it)
That ends up, on a moral level, not too far from firefighters-arsonists...
(worst case scenario - what would be the problem with billing the firefighting action?)
Ehh, was it so long after you've last seen '"analogue print" photos'? You know, a rectangular piece of photographic paper, permanently displaying a photograph. Often kept in purpose-made albums, though people like to also put them on refrigerators. As happened in Avatar (fridge in the small camp); what was virtually the only type of photograph in that world. Similarly with displays (not "live action") or video recordings in the setting - they are basically "2D" for all intents and purposes; the only really "3D" display, in setting, shows CGI (the volumetric map display).
For all the advanced tech in that movie (interstellar travel, hibernation, insane energy densities, neuroimaging & "neurolinking", far improved materials science, etc.), the display technology is quite primitive - barely surpassing what we already have, partly inferior to what the premiere of Avatar promoted, and almost certainly will be surpassed by real world technology far before any significant numbers of humans venture outside of Earth orbit (where was something as basic, straightforward and probably doable quite soon as, say, contact lenses giving augmented view of the world? A spiced up HUD, basically) - c'mon, science fiction films were better than that for a long time (having volumetric recordings of characters or even communication systems of such type, for example).
What's really telling - Avatar had some in-setting "analogue print" photos. On a fridge (a better one, sure - one with a window, I'd like to see some consumer ones like that - but still a fridge). And the only screen really utilising 3D, in the setting of the film, never displayed recorded images, just (in setting) CGI imagery. Almost a parody of itself.
Would be hilarious if Cameron largely tries to push cheap 3D tech for some other purpose (doesn't he have physics background? Many research disciplines should benefit, especially some "cool" or those revving up recently; also general info/educational purpose...), but knows what is the only way to get the industry onboard.
Other than that - 3D photography is just a few years younger from "normal" one, with good effect achievable for around 150 years...and hardly anybody cares. Aside from cases where stereoscopy should introduce some actually useful info, "3D" films seem to add mostly another imperfect way of seeing depth information...one which might essentially fight at times with another system of interpratation our brains are already using.
Plus from what I see, a semi-darkened room and decent projector seems to give the nicest feel to a lot of people... (maybe that's conditioning, maybe not) Now, only for some decent LED ones to show up...
Are you really sure it's a good idea to rely in ATC on an effect which is so subtle and not terribly accurate between viewers? (shouldn't we move away from subjectivity of single human operators in this field, away from the model that's half a century old and didn't really shift to what technology could allow already?)
So, a year later that's still the most used example by far...
Huh, did we somehow get back to the Roaring Twenties? (note how the title "The Man From M.A.R.S." suggests something stranegly similar to...). Or if one insists on something widely used, for a time... (note what was used during the "golden era" and later Stereovision - w00t, the disco will soon return?)
Besides, the stereographic sister of photography is only a few years younger than the latter; easily done for a long, long time to a satisfactory level of quality. And for one and a half of a century...still hardly anybody cares, except for a novelty factor.
I was kinda hoping for those 3D glasses to become a fashion accessory soon, would be slightly fun ;p
Would there be much use for the parallax approach? Except in handheld devices perhaps, people wouldn't really like to change their position in relation to the screen to see something "nice" (the other plausible scenario would be screens with ads, etc. in public space, but only when/if it can deal with many pairs of eyes). And even there it translates much better to CGI generated on the fly than to displaying recorded images / cinematographic approach (even more serious in volumetric displays; it's not a coincidence that the only "true" 3D display in Avatar showed what is even in its setting a generated CGI)
Though it won't matter to a lot of people; they already don't mind relegating large part of raising their kids to one/few of those black boxes...
Just imagine such orderly world...
Well, otoh one of two scenarios leading to what he meant was "we will wipe ourselves out" (and my overall point about how extrapolating progress like that has...issues)
And generally - do people even care about constellations all that much? (they sure don't care about how almost all the stars basically dissapeared behind light pollution) How many people care about your rhino, or even "objective" monkey face for that matter? ;)