hear hear, if i had mod points right now this would be "insightful" for sure.
i very much agree with you, sometimes biographical information of a thinker or the prose of a poet can inspire new thoughts about works. but i don't think hearing a voice is too much of a biographical insight.
I'd rank Bioware and Valve in that kind of category as well though.
Both companys have a penchant for producing great quality games and both have released games that have helped define their specific genres. I have great confidence when I get a game by some companies and I respect the amount of effort Bioware, Blizzard and Valve put into making their games great.
yeah whenever i go to the theatre nowadays on weekends i generally prefer the matinees because of the smaller audience. less chance of annoying people sitting by you as well.
the DVD issue is relevant, up here in Canada we have relatively cheap DVDs (tickets are from $8-13 and a DVD generally costs about $20-26 and about $50-60 for the high end ones like Criterion) so i often do prefer to own my favourites on DVD and also to rent new releases that I don't think i would want to own (rentals run about $3-5)
if it's something i haven't been looking forward to but was recommended by friends or such i will tend to wait for the DVD release. but if i've been really excited for something (like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Garden State) then i will make the effort to go and see it.
i will tend to also go and see films that do not see a wide release (and subsequently a smaller distribution for the DVD release) in theatres - foreign films fit well into this catagory but films like Barbarian Invasions and Station Agent qualify as well. i just had a chance to see Izo (the new Takashi Miike film) at the Vancouver Film Festival and as far as i know it was oner of the first screenings outside of Japan and wouldn't be available on DVD in North America for another 6-10 months or so.
only in some instances have i bought a DVD without seeing the film before though, most of the time we'll go on cheap night to the rental place around the corner and grab some interesting ones i've missed in theatres and then if i really enjoy it then i will make the purchase (but i'm very picky on what makes it into my DVD collection).
what sort of dictum states that open source software should have a limited userbase? what exactly makes Iranians, North Koreans and Syrians not 'worthy' of using the software we choose to use? just wondering.
well i think the main upside to it would be the position of the body in relation to the map, say if you see a dead teammate lying right inside the door you can be pretty sure someone is watching that door and by the way the body could be contorted by the bullet/death you can determine which way the enemy is camped. and although i have not played i'm pretty sure the limbs don't rip off, when was the last time you saw an arm get ripped off from getting shot with an mp5?
this has helped me in games like Call of Duty when you can kinda tell the direction of an enemy through how a body falls (sometimes) but the improved physics of CS:S should help in this area a great deal.
you are not taking my words in the right terms, i'm not saying that After Effects/Illustrator/Photoshop make Premiere better but rather the corelation and integration to After Effects of Premiere/Illustrator/Photoshop enchances After Effects
i'm not saying that Final Cut Pro/Motion are bad, hell i've used them countless times it's just that that suite has some catching up to do to equal the functions provided by the (now) more advanced adobe suite (for motion graphics!)
and yes i've used FCP and i know it is a very nice program.
well it seems we agree - i have nothing against anything you just posted.
actually just so you know - most of the stuff i do 'professionally' (in the sense which is generally accepted) has been bland jobs that i just get done. the reason i myself screw around is to further what i'm doing myself, for me commercial purposes take a passenger seat to just having fun with it. it's a skewed perspective i know but what's the fun in sticking to what everyone else is doing?
even if it's more efficient or has a support community some of the best and greatest things i've ever learnt were in the process of resolving issues around hardware and software in the mid to late 90's. when it was not too common to do digital video and a lot of print media it made me better at what i do by being able to work around the problems presented to me.
i don't believe in the concept of a 'creative' really and i don't see any boundary between a 'professional' and an 'artist', in fact i don't see many boundaries at all.
sorry for my knee-jerk reactions too dude.
and i see what you mean
the "surface customizable" line was a metaphor not an actual gripe. sorry if you took that that way
again, sorry about the WETA reference, it was mentioned earlier in this thread and I should have RTFA'ed again to refresh my memory on the subject instead of just using it.
funny that you say that though many of my friends LOVE to hack hardware and software to do things..for example one of my friends took courses and such so that he could mod audio tools and electronic instruments to better work in conjunction with his computer equipment - which meant actively taking apart audio capture devices and modifying them. standards are there to be broken for individual purpose, so whether you choose to or not is really...your choice.
i always am amazed by the perpetuation that "professionals" HAVE to be efficient or buy the standards.. but part of the fields are always experimentation for innovation - for example in the arena graphic design you ALWAYS try to muck around and come out with something that's great and sometimes that involves doing wierd things with equipment (like screwing with WACOM tablets and going back to traditional media to augment digital techniques)
1. professionals that use PCs know well enough how to avoid viruses, spyware, crashes etc. if they don't then i guess it's better they stick to the mac platform
2. it's not about the environment in which the tools exist, the tools rely on perfomance yes but artists/editors who function first outside of the operating environment (such as sketchbooking, storyboarding and timeline structuring) are those that become truly innovative and 'creative', if you're relying on creativity from the environment in which your tools exist you're looking in the wrong place.
3. good point though.
4. final cut is a very robust app I use it all the time for editing when i do use a mac environment, my point is that even if i did use final cut for basic editing on the mac i would still choose the export the resulting files to after effects for further production work - Motion as a lot of catching up to do.
I agree on the avid systems, but the thread here is about Motion vs. other motion graphics animation apps. so therefore because of the Premiere/Photoshop/Illustrator connection to After Effects i included Premiere, not because i think premiere is better i just believe the combo of the four pieces proves better for advanced users. I use FCP a lot actually, many of my friends who do skate/snowboard vids prefer FCP so subsequently I had to learn to use them.
i see what you mean and i really agree with you on many points.
nobody inferred that to "try out different configurations of machines" takes 20 hours a week, nor is it as big of a deal as many mac users make it. but the fact is that the PC as a platform for video/audio and print is endlessly customizable, in an era where machines can be upped in performance and capability easily why stick with the standard hardware offered by Apple? in my opinion it's not a productivity loss to upgrade your machine because it only comes around once or so a year and by upgrading you get more of a continual use out of your investment.
many mac users hold the idea that when Apple says "productivity!" "doesn't crash!" "it works!" "it's beautiful!" it is the paradigm of computing. but that is just a weird way of thinking to me. listen, i've used macs countless times before and i genuinely like them but what i try to get across is even though they are good machines they are essentially no better than a PC - or even slightly worse because a PC is more open.
what i am argueing is that it's not that great to get stuck in a rut about something. for example i am argueing something akin to this in relation to professional video editing: many people use Windows - some people use an alternative OS. Windows allows surface customization, with alternative OSs you can cuztomize anything you want and this subsequently could prove more versatile.
once again, I am not a mac hater, i use them at work but that doesn't mean you can't question the idea of a mac - i don't like how you can't mess around, i don't enjoy the fact that Apple just pretty much skips performance issues and hides behind advertising buzzwords. but i do respect the fact that it gets the job done for some people. since i can screw around with my on PCs all i want and increase their performance beyond that of a mac for video editing and print then i subsequently will like my PC more. but many mac users can't seem to get this point that there are alternatives to the 'industry standards' presented and that sometimes these alternatives may prove to be better than what is 'standard'
ie. it was brought up in this thread that WETA chose to use Shake on Linux rather than on the mac platform. why? because they could customize machines to do the job better.
People who can do that are not video professionals.
any specific reason as to why you believe that statement to be true? people that do video for a living should know their hardware inside and out. for example i need to know details on everything from the cameras available on a project to the type of audio capture device (be it reel or MD or other) and I have to know the specific workflow that the project needs for completion and therefore customize hardware for the task. for example if a client has an old reel to reel filmstrip he needs to capture the normal mac setup won't cut it you'll need a film scanner and such. or else someone has a multiple source project you need a system capable of handling the multiple capture options (above the average 1394 devices).
i have never met a good video 'pro' who does not know his stuff concerning his workstation and the type of equipment he needs down to the last detail. if you can memorize the operation on maintenance of video cameras, audio capture and lighting fixtures a computer really isn't that far beyond that. many of my friends have realized that the mac line of "easy to use" and "productive" sometimes just doesn't cut it. so the argument that video professionals should just sit there and use a mac without question just because Apple says it is a more productive platform really falls flat - because those that have the motivation to try out different configurations of machines win out by getting the project done perhaps faster and cheaper.
see that is the myth that i tend to see does not exist, i have worked frequently with both mac and PC workflow for both video and print and that conclusion is that if you are good with a PC and can properly build your own to your custom specs and properly maintain it there is no real performance or productivity gain offered by a mac. a mac workflow has never proven to me effectively that it is better and more 'productive' than a PC.
the mac party-line or "increased productivity" has been lost no many of my co-workers and it's interesting to see that some professors i know are pushing for PC labs in classrooms because of easy upgrade, cheap price (therefore more machines can be bought) and the relatively same degree of productivity. many of the workplaces that my freinds have functions in use a mac workflow for print/video but it's interesting to note that at home most of them swear by the versatility of their PC versus owning a mac at home. granted that macs are easier for graphic designers and video editors that don't take an interest in customizing their hardware options and variables for better performance and customization. my point being that as long as you're good enough with computer to keep your PC performing well (and workflow organized) there is no real backbone to the mac 'productivity' claim.
maybe i'm coming off as a bit of an After Effects fanboy but it has to be said. Adobe addressed the rendering issues in 6.5 with the ability to utilize OpenGL in preview rendering. the behaviours type options you describe in Motion seem nice - but once you get really into the advanced functions of After Effects there are behaviours-like options available except just without the "easy to learn" terminology, part of the charm of using After Effect for an advanced user is that the options for effects and such are dealt with in exact variables so by initially learning the animation and manipulation variables outright you know exactly what to tweak and when. (albeit the learning curve for After Effects is akin to a vertical ascent of a sheer ice wall). much of the effort is just working out how to organize keyframing on the timeline and then everything else (the hundreds of possible operations per keyframe) falls into place.
although don't get me wrong it's really nice to see an app with less of a learning curve for motion graphics out and i'm really glad it works well for you. Adobe will have a run for it's money versus Motion when Motion can match the functionality and versatility of AE - not just the ease of use - the fuctions between premiere/after effects/illustrator/photoshop in creating elements to manipulate within compositions is still unmatched. Motion will be great for users seeking various basic effects and text manipulation but for commercial applications After Effects and related apps still take the cake in that the expanse of variables is painstakingly detailed at times.
for teams that tackle things like commercial graphics and film graphic design it is important to tweak everything by hand just to maintain a unique visual style and the more advanced features apply in those uses. I'm not really saying that Motion can't be used in that aspect but to video professionals it may become something akin to seeing an emboss/pixelate photoshop effect on an image for a graphic designer. Point: effects and preset only go so far, for a lot of uses it comes down to detailing (which After Effects still has plenty more of) - well that is just judging from the previews of Motion - inform me if i'm incorrect in this matter.
it's always a big deal to some of my (mac user) friends that macs are reputed to be good for video and print workflow. being someone who has worked at companies which did video editing and one that ran a adobe/mac print publication workflow i've come to the conclusion that macs are okay for the above applications.
as for the video aspect of macs they are well rounded in that you can choose between the final cut line and the adobe/premiere/ae product line but at the end of the day most small budget filmmakers i know have opted for a PC based video editing suite due to the high cost of Apple hardware added to the already high price for the adobe products - which I personally believe to be a more robust suite - whereby the major deciding factor in favour of the adobe line would be photoshop/illustrator integration with the video editing side. Motion can probably hold it's own with design/animation but the abilities offered by a Photoshop/After Effects combo are as of yet unmatched.
for higher budget studios the availability of Shake/Logic is a big plus for the mac side of the argument. but if i were to recommend a direction for small filmmakers it would be a PC with the adobe line. this being that smaller productions don't need apps like Shake and for editing and animation i've found that a well maintained PC is just as fast and nice at editing than a mac.
needless to say that Motion has much growth ahead of it in order to catch up to such apps as After Effects and Combustion. so far it looks to be a nice application with a decent interface and it'll be nice to see some competition for After Effects and Combustion after a little while. Mod me offtopic for my 'mac myth' gripe but I personally don't see any real reason why low budget filmmakers should use an Apple machine over a PC. the common Mac 'party line' is that it's just...better, but it's not until you actually try using both PC and macs for video editing that you realise PC's are just as fast in regards to rendering, workflow and interface - if not even faster - for a lower price.
um no the 'fix is in' is really just a nice little satirical joke on the state of the political environment in the US - at least that's what i got out of it, don't take it too seriously now dude.
Bush will be out come november. One Term President.
...will welcome a stronger single player experience from Neverwinter Nights 2 - although don't get me wrong I really enjoyed the experience provided by the first one as a whole package. KotOR was definately one of the strongest RPGs in the last few years and I think the team at Obsidian will do a great job with it. I've been a fanboy of Fallout, Torment and Icewind Dale and I'm really excited to see what Obsidian produces.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when the Dell recall was initiated the mailing list I am on proclaimed "oh my god dell laptops explode, dell sucks"
...hah
when Apple recalled the general consensus was: "yay new battery!"
hear hear, if i had mod points right now this would be "insightful" for sure.
i very much agree with you, sometimes biographical information of a thinker or the prose of a poet can inspire new thoughts about works. but i don't think hearing a voice is too much of a biographical insight.
no you are not alone, i tend to agree with that assessment
...life finds a way.
haha those are good.
Q: How do I know what is the "truth"? A: You Kant!
there are rumours floating around of HL2DM so we shall see.
I'd rank Bioware and Valve in that kind of category as well though. Both companys have a penchant for producing great quality games and both have released games that have helped define their specific genres. I have great confidence when I get a game by some companies and I respect the amount of effort Bioware, Blizzard and Valve put into making their games great.
yeah whenever i go to the theatre nowadays on weekends i generally prefer the matinees because of the smaller audience. less chance of annoying people sitting by you as well.
the DVD issue is relevant, up here in Canada we have relatively cheap DVDs (tickets are from $8-13 and a DVD generally costs about $20-26 and about $50-60 for the high end ones like Criterion) so i often do prefer to own my favourites on DVD and also to rent new releases that I don't think i would want to own (rentals run about $3-5)
** all prices above are in CAD
if it's something i haven't been looking forward to but was recommended by friends or such i will tend to wait for the DVD release. but if i've been really excited for something (like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Garden State) then i will make the effort to go and see it.
i will tend to also go and see films that do not see a wide release (and subsequently a smaller distribution for the DVD release) in theatres - foreign films fit well into this catagory but films like Barbarian Invasions and Station Agent qualify as well. i just had a chance to see Izo (the new Takashi Miike film) at the Vancouver Film Festival and as far as i know it was oner of the first screenings outside of Japan and wouldn't be available on DVD in North America for another 6-10 months or so.
only in some instances have i bought a DVD without seeing the film before though, most of the time we'll go on cheap night to the rental place around the corner and grab some interesting ones i've missed in theatres and then if i really enjoy it then i will make the purchase (but i'm very picky on what makes it into my DVD collection).
what sort of dictum states that open source software should have a limited userbase? what exactly makes Iranians, North Koreans and Syrians not 'worthy' of using the software we choose to use? just wondering.
this is the new trailer that was just released, so er....not old news. darkhorizons has a link to it as well.
well i think the main upside to it would be the position of the body in relation to the map, say if you see a dead teammate lying right inside the door you can be pretty sure someone is watching that door and by the way the body could be contorted by the bullet/death you can determine which way the enemy is camped. and although i have not played i'm pretty sure the limbs don't rip off, when was the last time you saw an arm get ripped off from getting shot with an mp5?
this has helped me in games like Call of Duty when you can kinda tell the direction of an enemy through how a body falls (sometimes) but the improved physics of CS:S should help in this area a great deal.
you are not taking my words in the right terms, i'm not saying that After Effects/Illustrator/Photoshop make Premiere better but rather the corelation and integration to After Effects of Premiere/Illustrator/Photoshop enchances After Effects
i'm not saying that Final Cut Pro/Motion are bad, hell i've used them countless times it's just that that suite has some catching up to do to equal the functions provided by the (now) more advanced adobe suite (for motion graphics!)
and yes i've used FCP and i know it is a very nice program.
well it seems we agree - i have nothing against anything you just posted.
actually just so you know - most of the stuff i do 'professionally' (in the sense which is generally accepted) has been bland jobs that i just get done. the reason i myself screw around is to further what i'm doing myself, for me commercial purposes take a passenger seat to just having fun with it. it's a skewed perspective i know but what's the fun in sticking to what everyone else is doing?
even if it's more efficient or has a support community some of the best and greatest things i've ever learnt were in the process of resolving issues around hardware and software in the mid to late 90's. when it was not too common to do digital video and a lot of print media it made me better at what i do by being able to work around the problems presented to me.
i don't believe in the concept of a 'creative' really and i don't see any boundary between a 'professional' and an 'artist', in fact i don't see many boundaries at all.
sorry for my knee-jerk reactions too dude.
and i see what you mean
the "surface customizable" line was a metaphor not an actual gripe. sorry if you took that that way
again, sorry about the WETA reference, it was mentioned earlier in this thread and I should have RTFA'ed again to refresh my memory on the subject instead of just using it.
funny that you say that though many of my friends LOVE to hack hardware and software to do things..for example one of my friends took courses and such so that he could mod audio tools and electronic instruments to better work in conjunction with his computer equipment - which meant actively taking apart audio capture devices and modifying them. standards are there to be broken for individual purpose, so whether you choose to or not is really...your choice.
i always am amazed by the perpetuation that "professionals" HAVE to be efficient or buy the standards.. but part of the fields are always experimentation for innovation - for example in the arena graphic design you ALWAYS try to muck around and come out with something that's great and sometimes that involves doing wierd things with equipment (like screwing with WACOM tablets and going back to traditional media to augment digital techniques)
1. professionals that use PCs know well enough how to avoid viruses, spyware, crashes etc. if they don't then i guess it's better they stick to the mac platform
2. it's not about the environment in which the tools exist, the tools rely on perfomance yes but artists/editors who function first outside of the operating environment (such as sketchbooking, storyboarding and timeline structuring) are those that become truly innovative and 'creative', if you're relying on creativity from the environment in which your tools exist you're looking in the wrong place.
3. good point though.
4. final cut is a very robust app I use it all the time for editing when i do use a mac environment, my point is that even if i did use final cut for basic editing on the mac i would still choose the export the resulting files to after effects for further production work - Motion as a lot of catching up to do.
I agree on the avid systems, but the thread here is about Motion vs. other motion graphics animation apps. so therefore because of the Premiere/Photoshop/Illustrator connection to After Effects i included Premiere, not because i think premiere is better i just believe the combo of the four pieces proves better for advanced users. I use FCP a lot actually, many of my friends who do skate/snowboard vids prefer FCP so subsequently I had to learn to use them.
i see what you mean and i really agree with you on many points.
nobody inferred that to "try out different configurations of machines" takes 20 hours a week, nor is it as big of a deal as many mac users make it. but the fact is that the PC as a platform for video/audio and print is endlessly customizable, in an era where machines can be upped in performance and capability easily why stick with the standard hardware offered by Apple? in my opinion it's not a productivity loss to upgrade your machine because it only comes around once or so a year and by upgrading you get more of a continual use out of your investment.
many mac users hold the idea that when Apple says "productivity!" "doesn't crash!" "it works!" "it's beautiful!" it is the paradigm of computing. but that is just a weird way of thinking to me. listen, i've used macs countless times before and i genuinely like them but what i try to get across is even though they are good machines they are essentially no better than a PC - or even slightly worse because a PC is more open.
what i am argueing is that it's not that great to get stuck in a rut about something. for example i am argueing something akin to this in relation to professional video editing: many people use Windows - some people use an alternative OS. Windows allows surface customization, with alternative OSs you can cuztomize anything you want and this subsequently could prove more versatile.
once again, I am not a mac hater, i use them at work but that doesn't mean you can't question the idea of a mac - i don't like how you can't mess around, i don't enjoy the fact that Apple just pretty much skips performance issues and hides behind advertising buzzwords. but i do respect the fact that it gets the job done for some people. since i can screw around with my on PCs all i want and increase their performance beyond that of a mac for video editing and print then i subsequently will like my PC more. but many mac users can't seem to get this point that there are alternatives to the 'industry standards' presented and that sometimes these alternatives may prove to be better than what is 'standard'
ie. it was brought up in this thread that WETA chose to use Shake on Linux rather than on the mac platform. why? because they could customize machines to do the job better.
People who can do that are not video professionals.
any specific reason as to why you believe that statement to be true? people that do video for a living should know their hardware inside and out. for example i need to know details on everything from the cameras available on a project to the type of audio capture device (be it reel or MD or other) and I have to know the specific workflow that the project needs for completion and therefore customize hardware for the task. for example if a client has an old reel to reel filmstrip he needs to capture the normal mac setup won't cut it you'll need a film scanner and such. or else someone has a multiple source project you need a system capable of handling the multiple capture options (above the average 1394 devices).
i have never met a good video 'pro' who does not know his stuff concerning his workstation and the type of equipment he needs down to the last detail. if you can memorize the operation on maintenance of video cameras, audio capture and lighting fixtures a computer really isn't that far beyond that. many of my friends have realized that the mac line of "easy to use" and "productive" sometimes just doesn't cut it. so the argument that video professionals should just sit there and use a mac without question just because Apple says it is a more productive platform really falls flat - because those that have the motivation to try out different configurations of machines win out by getting the project done perhaps faster and cheaper.
see that is the myth that i tend to see does not exist, i have worked frequently with both mac and PC workflow for both video and print and that conclusion is that if you are good with a PC and can properly build your own to your custom specs and properly maintain it there is no real performance or productivity gain offered by a mac. a mac workflow has never proven to me effectively that it is better and more 'productive' than a PC.
the mac party-line or "increased productivity" has been lost no many of my co-workers and it's interesting to see that some professors i know are pushing for PC labs in classrooms because of easy upgrade, cheap price (therefore more machines can be bought) and the relatively same degree of productivity. many of the workplaces that my freinds have functions in use a mac workflow for print/video but it's interesting to note that at home most of them swear by the versatility of their PC versus owning a mac at home. granted that macs are easier for graphic designers and video editors that don't take an interest in customizing their hardware options and variables for better performance and customization. my point being that as long as you're good enough with computer to keep your PC performing well (and workflow organized) there is no real backbone to the mac 'productivity' claim.
whereby "productivity" just becomes buzzword.
maybe i'm coming off as a bit of an After Effects fanboy but it has to be said. Adobe addressed the rendering issues in 6.5 with the ability to utilize OpenGL in preview rendering. the behaviours type options you describe in Motion seem nice - but once you get really into the advanced functions of After Effects there are behaviours-like options available except just without the "easy to learn" terminology, part of the charm of using After Effect for an advanced user is that the options for effects and such are dealt with in exact variables so by initially learning the animation and manipulation variables outright you know exactly what to tweak and when. (albeit the learning curve for After Effects is akin to a vertical ascent of a sheer ice wall). much of the effort is just working out how to organize keyframing on the timeline and then everything else (the hundreds of possible operations per keyframe) falls into place.
although don't get me wrong it's really nice to see an app with less of a learning curve for motion graphics out and i'm really glad it works well for you. Adobe will have a run for it's money versus Motion when Motion can match the functionality and versatility of AE - not just the ease of use - the fuctions between premiere/after effects/illustrator/photoshop in creating elements to manipulate within compositions is still unmatched. Motion will be great for users seeking various basic effects and text manipulation but for commercial applications After Effects and related apps still take the cake in that the expanse of variables is painstakingly detailed at times.
for teams that tackle things like commercial graphics and film graphic design it is important to tweak everything by hand just to maintain a unique visual style and the more advanced features apply in those uses. I'm not really saying that Motion can't be used in that aspect but to video professionals it may become something akin to seeing an emboss/pixelate photoshop effect on an image for a graphic designer. Point: effects and preset only go so far, for a lot of uses it comes down to detailing (which After Effects still has plenty more of) - well that is just judging from the previews of Motion - inform me if i'm incorrect in this matter.
it's always a big deal to some of my (mac user) friends that macs are reputed to be good for video and print workflow. being someone who has worked at companies which did video editing and one that ran a adobe/mac print publication workflow i've come to the conclusion that macs are okay for the above applications.
as for the video aspect of macs they are well rounded in that you can choose between the final cut line and the adobe/premiere/ae product line but at the end of the day most small budget filmmakers i know have opted for a PC based video editing suite due to the high cost of Apple hardware added to the already high price for the adobe products - which I personally believe to be a more robust suite - whereby the major deciding factor in favour of the adobe line would be photoshop/illustrator integration with the video editing side. Motion can probably hold it's own with design/animation but the abilities offered by a Photoshop/After Effects combo are as of yet unmatched.
for higher budget studios the availability of Shake/Logic is a big plus for the mac side of the argument. but if i were to recommend a direction for small filmmakers it would be a PC with the adobe line. this being that smaller productions don't need apps like Shake and for editing and animation i've found that a well maintained PC is just as fast and nice at editing than a mac.
needless to say that Motion has much growth ahead of it in order to catch up to such apps as After Effects and Combustion. so far it looks to be a nice application with a decent interface and it'll be nice to see some competition for After Effects and Combustion after a little while. Mod me offtopic for my 'mac myth' gripe but I personally don't see any real reason why low budget filmmakers should use an Apple machine over a PC. the common Mac 'party line' is that it's just...better, but it's not until you actually try using both PC and macs for video editing that you realise PC's are just as fast in regards to rendering, workflow and interface - if not even faster - for a lower price.
um no the 'fix is in' is really just a nice little satirical joke on the state of the political environment in the US - at least that's what i got out of it, don't take it too seriously now dude. Bush will be out come november. One Term President.
...will welcome a stronger single player experience from Neverwinter Nights 2 - although don't get me wrong I really enjoyed the experience provided by the first one as a whole package. KotOR was definately one of the strongest RPGs in the last few years and I think the team at Obsidian will do a great job with it. I've been a fanboy of Fallout, Torment and Icewind Dale and I'm really excited to see what Obsidian produces.