I happen to agree with you, that because of US imposed RoE these actions are not acceptable, but I can't avoid pointing out that what you're suggesting (killing anyone/everyone in theatre) is the US military is already being accused of / seen as doing exactly that.
I suspect the names you listed are "dramatic sounding" because of what they've done and not the other way around. I'm pretty sure there was an issue about "astronauts are not named Gus" regarding a press conference with Grissom.
Many "themed" win32 apps take that power away from you, simply because the developers cannot imagine anyone wanting to disable it.
Truly, if there's already an existing option for widget themeing, I'd prefer every application to at least have an option to defer to it. Case(s) in point: winamp, trillian, firefox, thunderbird and windowblinds.
Windowblinds will skin just about everything that doesn't skin itself. I couldn't stand trillian for not having an "unskinned" option. I couldn't stand seeing the developer responses saying "just use a windows skin" when my windows skin looks nothing like windows.
Thankfully, firefox and thunderbird don't create any real obvious CPU usage, and the window decoration of the UI is honored (e.g. provided/overwritten by windowblinds). Trillian sure as hell took its own sweet time drawing windows; I switched to miranda.
Correct, but what this means is that there should now be some level of accountability to the originator. One of the biggest complaints I would have, looking into email-spam as a problem, would be that there's no way to hold a sender accountable when the true origination of the message is unknown. If I understand the proposal correctly, that accountability will at least be marginally present.
The ability to spoof this system is another issue entirely. The system's intention would appear to add value.
How will I be able to send mail using my own business' domain, as I do today, when it is going out via an ISP server?
A valid concern; as I read it, this wouldn't be possible. Either that or we're overlooking exactly what makes up a valid original sender.
How does this relate in any way to the realism of the art?
Directly. The more iconic (less realistic) a face, for example, the more readily it can be thought of as "anyone" or "everyone". There are limits, of course, which should be respected or all the characters will end up looking alike.
Further, the simplified facial design allows for easier communication of emotions (see: anime/manga).
Character and story depth have little to do, as I understand the statement, with the animation technologies that are being criticised here. Most of the earlier posts appeared to be arguments based solely on rendering tricks, the story arguments started showing up later (or so I thought).
I have to wonder if some of these improvements were SO good that we WERE fooled into ignoring what may be the newer technology's best qualities. Look for a capture (or watch it again) where shrek, donkey, and puss are sitting at the bar after shrek has decided to "give up" on fiona. Watch the side of Shrek's face when the tavern's door opens (the king is walking in, hooded).
There is a bright and VERY real-looking splash of the outside light (colder, white) across the side of shrek's face there (his left, our right); it's gorgeous, it washes out the details of his skin shader properly, and the warmer ambient candlelight of the room is still visible on the opposing surfaces.
I just can't help think that some of those improvements were completely glossed over exactly because they were so good. That attention to detail is no different than the subtle reflections on (or taiwanese molding errors of) plastic surfaces in the toystory films.
They're not trying to make a movie that looks like its Live Action
I believe both studios are doing exactly that, scaling back the realism of characters, for a reason I posted above (iconic characters are easier to identify with, as a passive viewer). It would be interesting to see both studios have a "realism" contest that wasn't judged by anything other than render. No voice actors, no story, simple action sequence with a director and the art/animation team. It would probably need sound, but no "acting" as in spoken lines; grunts at best. I'd be very surprised if the quality was really all that different between the two shops. Most of what we're arguing here is personal taste and possible ignorance (not to flame, just meaning people may be unaware) that a movie animated by computer might not want full realism on the one thing we focus the most upon: the characters.
It's also worth noting that there were huge improvements between Toy Story and Toy Story 2.
There were, but the filmmakers intentionally tried to downplay the advances in order to keep a consistent look and feel to the film's photography and design. I thought they succeeded, personally, but if you're seeing huge/obvious improvements then I guess they didn't.
Re:State of the art?
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Agreed, but that's clearly the intent. Pixar isn't aiming for photorealistic characters, only the environments (if at all). There's a big long discussion on why that's good for storytelling in a book by Scott McCloud which I won't bother linking to. I'm sure he's selling it from his website anyway, it's called "Understanding Comics" and it's worth reading if you enjoy sequential art of any kind.
Look for his dissertation on realistic versus iconic imagery.
Without knowing your laptop's specs, I'll just speculate wildly (as you are, if you'll pardon the slight flame).
What card? I can't help but notice that nvidia just recently released what is supposed to be "finally a good graphics card for laptops"
What system RAM? Is it enough? ut2k4 can really do that ~.5s halt for a few reasons, none of which are the operating system
What hardware brands? I recall a number of people, here on./, often posting that when older versions of windows crashed more often, it was harder to notice hardware faults. The (bad?) logic was that most folks would (often, but not always, correctly) blame the OS for all crashes, even the ones that might not be the OS fault at all.
Heat. Are you overheating a component? I used to see funny video halts on a system I had years ago (voodoo3, 3500) that were simply a heat problem. It went away when I bought an airconditioner for that room.
Further, I get this same funny ~.5s pause in ut2k4 on my linux box and it's definitely a question of not having enough ram. Not enough in the system, not enough on the card. I can turn down the settings a bit below max and it becomes a ~.5s pause much less frequently, and only when drastically changing the view.
Here's another ul:
p4 2.1ghz (you may blame this as well, but I'm not so sure)
256Mb RDRAM (long story, bad vendor)
geforce4 ti 4200 (64mb, again, bad vendor/long story)
Clearly I don't belong trying to run ut2k4 at anywhere NEAR peak performance (probably not at all) without some upgrading. I wonder if the same isn't true of your laptop.
Regarding the tools to track it down, I'm not sure you could pinpoint these hardware issues any differently in linux or windows, but this machine runs the game identically in both and it seems clear that's the problem on my system too.
Steve Jobs is invited to Xerox PARC and sees three things:
Ethernet, in use. 100 altos networked and sharing information (email, etc).
Object oriented programming (no idea what language it was made into)
A black & white GUI which looked exactly like the original MAC OS. Right down to the little mouse pointer and popup menus.
In a filmed interview, Jobs explicitly says "I said: now THAT, I can steal." Personally, I'm glad someone stole it; Xerox laughed at the PARC group's presentation of the future of computing. Some of those people went on to invent such trivialities as PostScript and
Photoshop. I'm sure there's more, but I haven't read/watched all that in a while.
Microsoft was hired by Apple to write applications for the Mac, far in advance of the Mac's release. No argument from me about theft, but Apple did explicitly demo the stuff for Microsoft. Let's dislike Microsoft for better reasons, ok?:)
Your other two facts are probably right. At the very least, I don't know what has been left out.
Still, that first one's so often repeated it's become twisted and kinda bothers me. I guess it bothers me more that it's modded insightful even though only 1 of your 3 bulletpoints (the last one) seems insightful to me.
According to this terrible windowsXP box I'm posting from, a 1px by 1px transparent gif is 43 bytes. Only those of us that look at the msg source, or prohibit download of remote images, would ever know it was there.
Good, because that was the guy who may or may not yet know that his ebay account was hijacked. This professor Surakul was not the recipient of the ppppowerbook. The other name employed was "Gianluca" something. That's how the barbershop owner signed for the package. I believe it was ascertained that his name is NOT "Gianluca" anything, but you'd have to search "the thread" for that.
The "escrow" website was archived by someone on the SA forum and can be found if you search there. The popup in question is a document that is hosted by verisign and provided when requested by referrer that verisign will vouch for. This "verisign popup" was not from verisign, but rather a forged, or fraudulent representation, of such; hosted, no less, by the "escrow company's" website.
Ebay confirmed that the account which the buyer used to identify himself to the seller was hijacked by (a) informing the seller and (b) nullifying the buyer's bid.
The ebay account pointed to an interior design professor in the american midwest. The seller was contacted by the "same" person using a wholly different persona (name, email acct, etc).
Perhaps none of us read the whole thread closely enough. I know I got kinda tired around page 78 (* 40 posts per page) but I made it to 80 before the mods pruned it.
I disagree. Not about being first to market, you're right about that, but about marketshare of a brand. You're speaking (rightly) about the marketshare of devices, but I'm speaking of the value in so-called "brand loyalty" which I think most of us had (in sega or nintendo) prior to that playstation release.
Sony had 0% of the game console market back in.. er, 1995? Nintendo and Sega held almost 100% (I believe there was one other system, but I don't recall which one it was). Prior to the microsoft's XBOX launch, I'm fairly certain that Sony clobbered the living bejesus out of existing marketshare holders with a single console product.
Ask Nintendo or Sega how many years of head start they had over Sony, see what their answer is.
Note: this is not to say that Sony will conquer, but that the above reason is not proof against it.
I'm not sure I fully agree with your description of the problem, but I think you're mostly right here.
Any attempt to describe the injustice in a foolproof way will only (or probably only) assert heavy restrictions on valid software. Any attempt to prove that the software was "granted" permission by the user will result in deeply-hidden and cleverly-worded explanations of what the software is doing. The same folks that are susceptible to it today will still be susceptible in the end.
If the user doesn't fully know whats being installed than it is spyware
And how exactly do you propose to verify this beyond a doubt? Consider the old RealPlayer, which some of us were willing to install that first time, that required non-beginner knowledge to fully remove.
You and I may know what we're installing, and we might also consider it pretty stupid-easy to go edit out the thing's entries from our windows registry, but that doesn't mean your below-average-or-average user will comprehend this. Those are exactly the people who are most affected by spyware.
The rest of us already know how it got there and how to get rid of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I happen to agree with you, that because of US imposed RoE these actions are not acceptable, but I can't avoid pointing out that what you're suggesting (killing anyone/everyone in theatre) is the US military is already being accused of / seen as doing exactly that.
More detail available here.
- Virgil I. Grissom
- Edwin Aldrin
- Wallace Shirra
- ... ?
I suspect the names you listed are "dramatic sounding" because of what they've done and not the other way around. I'm pretty sure there was an issue about "astronauts are not named Gus" regarding a press conference with Grissom.Truly, if there's already an existing option for widget themeing, I'd prefer every application to at least have an option to defer to it. Case(s) in point: winamp, trillian, firefox, thunderbird and windowblinds.
Windowblinds will skin just about everything that doesn't skin itself. I couldn't stand trillian for not having an "unskinned" option. I couldn't stand seeing the developer responses saying "just use a windows skin" when my windows skin looks nothing like windows.
Thankfully, firefox and thunderbird don't create any real obvious CPU usage, and the window decoration of the UI is honored (e.g. provided/overwritten by windowblinds). Trillian sure as hell took its own sweet time drawing windows; I switched to miranda.
With even a simple textfile solution, I can generate changelogs and (primitive) reports with a a single command.
Might be this one right here. I think Sun hired this guy to integrate it into something of theirs (java desktop maybe?). It looks pretty sturdy.
May some deity lay some appropriate blessings on you! You also deserve a moon pony. No, I'm not kidding, that feature drove me crazy.
Correct, but what this means is that there should now be some level of accountability to the originator. One of the biggest complaints I would have, looking into email-spam as a problem, would be that there's no way to hold a sender accountable when the true origination of the message is unknown. If I understand the proposal correctly, that accountability will at least be marginally present.
The ability to spoof this system is another issue entirely. The system's intention would appear to add value.
A valid concern; as I read it, this wouldn't be possible. Either that or we're overlooking exactly what makes up a valid original sender.
Directly. The more iconic (less realistic) a face, for example, the more readily it can be thought of as "anyone" or "everyone". There are limits, of course, which should be respected or all the characters will end up looking alike.
Further, the simplified facial design allows for easier communication of emotions (see: anime/manga).
Character and story depth have little to do, as I understand the statement, with the animation technologies that are being criticised here. Most of the earlier posts appeared to be arguments based solely on rendering tricks, the story arguments started showing up later (or so I thought).
> Some day in the future I will have mod points, and when I do I will hunt you down and mod you up for this post alone.
I totally second this. It's a fucking goldmine, I want to print it, frame it, and hang it on my wall.
I have to wonder if some of these improvements were SO good that we WERE fooled into ignoring what may be the newer technology's best qualities. Look for a capture (or watch it again) where shrek, donkey, and puss are sitting at the bar after shrek has decided to "give up" on fiona. Watch the side of Shrek's face when the tavern's door opens (the king is walking in, hooded).
There is a bright and VERY real-looking splash of the outside light (colder, white) across the side of shrek's face there (his left, our right); it's gorgeous, it washes out the details of his skin shader properly, and the warmer ambient candlelight of the room is still visible on the opposing surfaces.
I just can't help think that some of those improvements were completely glossed over exactly because they were so good. That attention to detail is no different than the subtle reflections on (or taiwanese molding errors of) plastic surfaces in the toystory films.
I believe both studios are doing exactly that, scaling back the realism of characters, for a reason I posted above (iconic characters are easier to identify with, as a passive viewer). It would be interesting to see both studios have a "realism" contest that wasn't judged by anything other than render. No voice actors, no story, simple action sequence with a director and the art/animation team. It would probably need sound, but no "acting" as in spoken lines; grunts at best. I'd be very surprised if the quality was really all that different between the two shops. Most of what we're arguing here is personal taste and possible ignorance (not to flame, just meaning people may be unaware) that a movie animated by computer might not want full realism on the one thing we focus the most upon: the characters.
There were, but the filmmakers intentionally tried to downplay the advances in order to keep a consistent look and feel to the film's photography and design. I thought they succeeded, personally, but if you're seeing huge/obvious improvements then I guess they didn't.
Agreed, but that's clearly the intent. Pixar isn't aiming for photorealistic characters, only the environments (if at all). There's a big long discussion on why that's good for storytelling in a book by Scott McCloud which I won't bother linking to. I'm sure he's selling it from his website anyway, it's called "Understanding Comics" and it's worth reading if you enjoy sequential art of any kind.
Look for his dissertation on realistic versus iconic imagery.
Further, I get this same funny ~.5s pause in ut2k4 on my linux box and it's definitely a question of not having enough ram. Not enough in the system, not enough on the card. I can turn down the settings a bit below max and it becomes a ~.5s pause much less frequently, and only when drastically changing the view.
Here's another ul:
- p4 2.1ghz (you may blame this as well, but I'm not so sure)
- 256Mb RDRAM (long story, bad vendor)
- geforce4 ti 4200 (64mb, again, bad vendor/long story)
Clearly I don't belong trying to run ut2k4 at anywhere NEAR peak performance (probably not at all) without some upgrading. I wonder if the same isn't true of your laptop.Regarding the tools to track it down, I'm not sure you could pinpoint these hardware issues any differently in linux or windows, but this machine runs the game identically in both and it seems clear that's the problem on my system too.
Okay, we went waaaay offtopic.
bastard, ya beat me by 1 post! :)
Steve Jobs is invited to Xerox PARC and sees three things:
- Ethernet, in use. 100 altos networked and sharing information (email, etc).
- Object oriented programming (no idea what language it was made into)
- A black & white GUI which looked exactly like the original MAC OS. Right down to the little mouse pointer and popup menus.
In a filmed interview, Jobs explicitly says "I said: now THAT, I can steal." Personally, I'm glad someone stole it; Xerox laughed at the PARC group's presentation of the future of computing. Some of those people went on to invent such trivialities as PostScript and Photoshop. I'm sure there's more, but I haven't read/watched all that in a while.Microsoft was hired by Apple to write applications for the Mac, far in advance of the Mac's release. No argument from me about theft, but Apple did explicitly demo the stuff for Microsoft. Let's dislike Microsoft for better reasons, ok? :)
Your other two facts are probably right. At the very least, I don't know what has been left out.
Still, that first one's so often repeated it's become twisted and kinda bothers me. I guess it bothers me more that it's modded insightful even though only 1 of your 3 bulletpoints (the last one) seems insightful to me.According to this terrible windowsXP box I'm posting from, a 1px by 1px transparent gif is 43 bytes. Only those of us that look at the msg source, or prohibit download of remote images, would ever know it was there.
Of course not. We're all looking to see if we need to update or patch something.
Good, because that was the guy who may or may not yet know that his ebay account was hijacked. This professor Surakul was not the recipient of the ppppowerbook. The other name employed was "Gianluca" something. That's how the barbershop owner signed for the package. I believe it was ascertained that his name is NOT "Gianluca" anything, but you'd have to search "the thread" for that.
Perhaps none of us read the whole thread closely enough. I know I got kinda tired around page 78 (* 40 posts per page) but I made it to 80 before the mods pruned it.
I disagree. Not about being first to market, you're right about that, but about marketshare of a brand. You're speaking (rightly) about the marketshare of devices, but I'm speaking of the value in so-called "brand loyalty" which I think most of us had (in sega or nintendo) prior to that playstation release.
Ask Nintendo or Sega how many years of head start they had over Sony, see what their answer is.
Note: this is not to say that Sony will conquer, but that the above reason is not proof against it.
I'm not sure I fully agree with your description of the problem, but I think you're mostly right here.
Any attempt to describe the injustice in a foolproof way will only (or probably only) assert heavy restrictions on valid software. Any attempt to prove that the software was "granted" permission by the user will result in deeply-hidden and cleverly-worded explanations of what the software is doing. The same folks that are susceptible to it today will still be susceptible in the end.
If the user doesn't fully know whats being installed than it is spyware
And how exactly do you propose to verify this beyond a doubt? Consider the old RealPlayer, which some of us were willing to install that first time, that required non-beginner knowledge to fully remove.
You and I may know what we're installing, and we might also consider it pretty stupid-easy to go edit out the thing's entries from our windows registry, but that doesn't mean your below-average-or-average user will comprehend this. Those are exactly the people who are most affected by spyware.
The rest of us already know how it got there and how to get rid of it.