So now the backgrounds are virtual, the actors are virtual, the script is formulaic, and the whole thing is financed by funny money.
Clearly the next step is to make the audience virtual. You send your movie-watching robot to watch the movie for you, and it e-mails you a "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down", freeing you to read a book or take a walk. Perhaps this is progress after all.
Downloaded and watched it. Blurry, indistinct and uninteresting. A complete waste of time. Which of course makes it perfectly appropriate for Slashdot:)
Is there any area of human activity which remains free of advertising? These guys continue to sink to new lows. Not long ago I went into a bar restroom to take a leak, and on the wall above the urinal was an ad. Talk about your captive audience. And how about the movies? Most U.S. theater chains now air advertisements before the trailers (which are themselves advertisements).
I dread the day when there is no more "content", and all entertainment is advertising. It can't be too far off now.
I don't care what my President does in his spare time. Baseball, football, windsurfing... hell, as far as I'm concerned he can while away the hours doing homoerotic needlepoint.
Just as long as he doesn't invade other countries under false pretenses. That's all. I'm not setting the bar very high here.
The only way electric/fuel cell based cars are actually a benefit to the environment is if they are powered by nuclear power plants or some other non-poluting technology. Fuel cells in cars won't solve anything by themselves.
Well, shifting pollution from densely populated cities to more remote areas would at least improve air quality for many people. However, I do agree that combining fuel cells with a clean source of energy production is the way to go. And nuclear power does deserve another chance - in fact, it is probably the only viable answer to the coming energy crunch.
I met a guy once who had been at an Emerson, Lake and Palmer concert back in the day. Their show featured a monster electronic synthesizer, a real one made of tubes, not the fancy digital stuff they have these days. ELP liked to use a lot of high notes, and as this guy was right up next to the speakers, you can guess the rest. He wears a hearing aid now.
Perhaps the saddest thing about this is that only large corporations have the money to spend on an event like the Olympics. And where does that money come from? From all of us, in the form of inflated costs for products and services.
People have no problem paying a dollar a bottle for sugar water, but try asking them to pay out of their pocket in the form of taxes (gasp!) to support a sports festival. Not going to happen.
We've accepted the idea that we should run to corporations for funding for nearly every public endeavour. Meanwhile advertising permeates every aspect of our lives, and (amazingly) most people don't seem to mind.
Well there is just no accounting for taste. Zardoz has always been one of my favorite movies. I remember seeing it as a kid at the drive-in, and it made a big impression.
Let me get this straight - this movie features a giant, flying stone head, a half-naked Charlotte Rampling, a barbarian Sean Connery on horseback, and a decadent, psychic overlord race. What's not to like? The visuals are primitive, true, but effective and quite original. Boorman was clearly on a budget, and it shows, but part of the craft of moviemaking is to make the best of what you have, and he surely did a fine job in that respect. Think of the sucky movies you've seen with expensive, detailed visual effects - "Wing Commander" springs to mind, for example - and perhaps the cheesy, artsy effects of Zardoz won't seem as bad.
The pun of the title is a groaner - I'll give you that one. But the scene in the old library where he learns the truth is cool, nonetheless. (BTW how exactly is the plot "inconsistent"?).
IMHO There are few science fiction movies that create a world and flesh it out as creatively as Zardoz. And if you don't buy that, well it's good for a laugh, at least.
"Want the job? Breathe this asbestos while you work."
"Want the job? Allow me to grope and fondle you."
"Want the job? Work overtime without compensation."
Sure, someone is always willing to fill that job. That doesn't make it right for employers to make odious demands of their employees.
Now on the other hand if a prospective employer asked me to sign an agreement that I would not disclose their proprietary methods or trade secrets to a competitor, that would be perfectly reasonable.
Stock price is based on a company's PERCEIVED value, not it's ACTUAL value.
There is no difference between the "perceived" value and the "actual" value, they are one and the same. The value of a company is whatever the market decides it to be. At any given moment, there are buyers and sellers who agree on a price for shares in the company - that is its value. No other definition makes any sense.
That reminds me, in a roundabout way, of one of my favorite jokes. A college psychology professor decides to quiz his students on their sexual habits. He asks the class how many have had sex more than once in the past week? Several raise their hands. How about once in the past week? More hands go up. Once in the past two weeks? And so on... after he has gotten to once every two months, he notices that everyone in the classroom has raised his or her hand, except for one guy sitting in the back. So he goes on:
"Three months". Nothing.
"Four months". Nope.
"Six months". Still nothing.
"One year?!".
Finally the guy in the back practically leaps out of his chair, raising his hand up high and bouncing up and down enthusiatically. The prof acknowledges him, and asks, "Well if you only get it once a year, why are you so happy?". The geeky guy smiles and says:
"'Cause tonight's the night!!"
P.S. If your wife wears glasses, may I recommend blue filters?:)
... to keep the language safe from this horrible word, "incent". It seems to have passed into common use without anyone asking whether we really need it. This word just sounds wrong, and it has vague associations to both "incite" and "incest", neither of which are likely to help put across the intended idea.
"Encourage" is a perfectly good alternative, and it doesn't grate on the nerves either. Or you can use the phrase "give an incentive" or "offer an incentive" if you feel "encourage" doesn't communicate the underlying meaning. "Spur" is good too albeit a little old-fashioned.
"Incent" deserves a slow and painful death, but I will settle for a quick one.
Now excuse me while I get back to writing my "Hello World" application that will last two centuries:-)
Unfortunately, in 200 years the language will have evolved, and the words and phrases we use today will have completely different meanings. People of the future will understand "Hello World" to mean "All Your Base Are Belong To Us", and believing your program to be a dire threat, they will fire up their time machine and send back Arnold Schwarzenegger's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson to eliminate you before you can even write it...
Well there's "bilateral", which is good if it involves two former enemies (like France and Germany), and bad if it involves two former enemies of the U.S. but not of each other (like Russia and anybody else).
"Trilateral" is automatically bad. Anything with three members is an Axis. That is because an axis has three poles. (Corollary: any group in Poland with three members is also an Axis).
Any number of laterals higher than three is just plain multilateral. Foreign correspondents can't seem to count higher than three.
(p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)
Certainly not! How else could I be writing to you... FROM THE YEAR 3004 AD!!!!!
Oh and btw, don't take the bus on Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012. Seriously. You don't affect history, but your son was captain of the first Earth-Saturn probe.
Slashdot Mirror
I say we skip that intermediate step, and just go straight to Mr. Fusion
Clearly the next step is to make the audience virtual. You send your movie-watching robot to watch the movie for you, and it e-mails you a "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down", freeing you to read a book or take a walk. Perhaps this is progress after all.
Downloaded and watched it. Blurry, indistinct and uninteresting. A complete waste of time. Which of course makes it perfectly appropriate for Slashdot :)
Wish I hadn't blown my points on another thread...
I dread the day when there is no more "content", and all entertainment is advertising. It can't be too far off now.
Just as long as he doesn't invade other countries under false pretenses. That's all. I'm not setting the bar very high here.
What is the penalty? Is it ... stiff?
The only way electric/fuel cell based cars are actually a benefit to the environment is if they are powered by nuclear power plants or some other non-poluting technology. Fuel cells in cars won't solve anything by themselves.
Well, shifting pollution from densely populated cities to more remote areas would at least improve air quality for many people. However, I do agree that combining fuel cells with a clean source of energy production is the way to go. And nuclear power does deserve another chance - in fact, it is probably the only viable answer to the coming energy crunch.
If doll-hair is outlawed, only outlaws will have doll-hair. Umm ... and dolls.
Reminds me of this one from the '80s:
,,,,,chameleon!
I met a guy once who had been at an Emerson, Lake and Palmer concert back in the day. Their show featured a monster electronic synthesizer, a real one made of tubes, not the fancy digital stuff they have these days. ELP liked to use a lot of high notes, and as this guy was right up next to the speakers, you can guess the rest. He wears a hearing aid now.
But he said it was a great show ... :)
Fellatio is perverted?
Man, this guy needs to get out more...
I did ask, and you just looked at me as if you couldn't hear what I was saying! :)
People have no problem paying a dollar a bottle for sugar water, but try asking them to pay out of their pocket in the form of taxes (gasp!) to support a sports festival. Not going to happen.
We've accepted the idea that we should run to corporations for funding for nearly every public endeavour. Meanwhile advertising permeates every aspect of our lives, and (amazingly) most people don't seem to mind.
Let me get this straight - this movie features a giant, flying stone head, a half-naked Charlotte Rampling, a barbarian Sean Connery on horseback, and a decadent, psychic overlord race. What's not to like? The visuals are primitive, true, but effective and quite original. Boorman was clearly on a budget, and it shows, but part of the craft of moviemaking is to make the best of what you have, and he surely did a fine job in that respect. Think of the sucky movies you've seen with expensive, detailed visual effects - "Wing Commander" springs to mind, for example - and perhaps the cheesy, artsy effects of Zardoz won't seem as bad.
The pun of the title is a groaner - I'll give you that one. But the scene in the old library where he learns the truth is cool, nonetheless. (BTW how exactly is the plot "inconsistent"?).
IMHO There are few science fiction movies that create a world and flesh it out as creatively as Zardoz. And if you don't buy that, well it's good for a laugh, at least.
"The gun is good! The penis is evil!"
Please Sir Ben, don't turn into Michael Caine!
Where does this kind of thinking stop?
"Want the job? Breathe this asbestos while you work."
"Want the job? Allow me to grope and fondle you."
"Want the job? Work overtime without compensation."
Sure, someone is always willing to fill that job. That doesn't make it right for employers to make odious demands of their employees.
Now on the other hand if a prospective employer asked me to sign an agreement that I would not disclose their proprietary methods or trade secrets to a competitor, that would be perfectly reasonable.
There is no difference between the "perceived" value and the "actual" value, they are one and the same. The value of a company is whatever the market decides it to be. At any given moment, there are buyers and sellers who agree on a price for shares in the company - that is its value. No other definition makes any sense.
That reminds me, in a roundabout way, of one of my favorite jokes. A college psychology professor decides to quiz his students on their sexual habits. He asks the class how many have had sex more than once in the past week? Several raise their hands. How about once in the past week? More hands go up. Once in the past two weeks? And so on ... after he has gotten to once every two months, he notices that everyone in the classroom has raised his or her hand, except for one guy sitting in the back. So he goes on:
"Three months". Nothing.
"Four months". Nope.
"Six months". Still nothing.
"One year?!".
Finally the guy in the back practically leaps out of his chair, raising his hand up high and bouncing up and down enthusiatically. The prof acknowledges him, and asks, "Well if you only get it once a year, why are you so happy?". The geeky guy smiles and says:
"'Cause tonight's the night!!"
P.S. If your wife wears glasses, may I recommend blue filters? :)
"Encourage" is a perfectly good alternative, and it doesn't grate on the nerves either. Or you can use the phrase "give an incentive" or "offer an incentive" if you feel "encourage" doesn't communicate the underlying meaning. "Spur" is good too albeit a little old-fashioned.
"Incent" deserves a slow and painful death, but I will settle for a quick one.
Campaign contributions?
Unfortunately, in 200 years the language will have evolved, and the words and phrases we use today will have completely different meanings. People of the future will understand "Hello World" to mean "All Your Base Are Belong To Us", and believing your program to be a dire threat, they will fire up their time machine and send back Arnold Schwarzenegger's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson to eliminate you before you can even write it...
Well there's "bilateral", which is good if it involves two former enemies (like France and Germany), and bad if it involves two former enemies of the U.S. but not of each other (like Russia and anybody else).
"Trilateral" is automatically bad. Anything with three members is an Axis. That is because an axis has three poles. (Corollary: any group in Poland with three members is also an Axis).
Any number of laterals higher than three is just plain multilateral. Foreign correspondents can't seem to count higher than three.
I wanted to reply to your comment, but the language is evolving so fast that meeble quixto do farble sa linguic!
(p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)
Certainly not! How else could I be writing to you ... FROM THE YEAR 3004 AD!!!!!
Oh and btw, don't take the bus on Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012. Seriously. You don't affect history, but your son was captain of the first Earth-Saturn probe.