I have been scarred for life by that movie. Sorry to say it, but when I was young, sci-fi was repulsive. My mom loved that movie, and my dad couldn't get enough of the Manhatten Project. Gah, 80's sci-fi haunts me to this day.
Just because I don't want to lose the lifestyle that I have become accustomed to does not mean that I don't want the poor in India to have a chance at improving their life.
Please consider that your lifestyle is most likely leaps and bounds ahead of the average Indian. You can thank the country you happen to live in for that. But, why should it matter where you live? You're a person, and so is everyone that happens to live in India. I don't think opportunity in life should be limited by geography, and I also don't believe that you personally are any "better" than any random person living in a 3rd-world country. Perhaps my argument is bordering on evil communism, but it seems as if our capitalist society has caused us to believe that our system is superior, and that anyone who lives here deserves a better life than the rest of the world. That's simply not true.
Actually, I wasn't approaching the issue with any particular bias. I was questioning whether the "older" technology (better or not) was simply rooted in nostalgia or personal preference.
I feel I have a good ear, but I suppose I am by no means an arrogant, pretentious audiophile. However, I am open to the opinion of those that are. Whether I have the money/interest or not really isn't the issue. I was simply searching for differing viewpoints on the matter.
I wonder if this desire for that "warm, soothing" sound will die when those that grew up with it do as well. Is the attraction anything more than conditioning and sentimentality? Sure, a lot modern digital music could be called cold and clinical, but as a perfect representation of what the artist intended to create, is there really anything missing?
In fact, it does help. It helps other people whp happen to be less privileged than US citizens. I'm really tired of that horribly ethnocentric viewpoint that people always seem to make. The US does not include the only people that are worth a damn. All people matter, not just the ones who live here. It's a changing world; one that's getting smaller by the day. Perhaps we should be less concerned about useless borders and begin to worry about humanity as a whole.
Oh, and for the millionth time, would the proponents of wind power factor in the cost of energy storage into their ridiculous claims that it's possible to affordably replace fossil fuel and nuclear generators with wind right now?
Furthermore, we should:
*Underclock our 3 Gig+ processors.
*Reduce production of throw-away electronics.
*Drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
*Stop producing resource-wasteful meat.
None of these will happen however, because Americans possess an incredible sense of entitlement and indulgence. Complaining about unclean power while engaging in wasteful activites is hypocritical. A perfect example of this sort of attitude is the huge push to find a cure for AIDS - a completely preventable disease. But, people want to keep doing what they do regardless of the consequences, sometimes to the point where they try to redefine the consequences rather than simply accepting responsibility.
While I agree effects should be secondary to the story, I think the real talent is in creating effects that are as realistic as possible, so that the audience doesn't question what they're seeing, and can get swept up in the story. That's probably why there was an effects guy on Shawshank, and why you didn't notice him... he did his job well.
Very true. You make a good point, and I suppose I should qualify my previous statements by saying that I believe special effects do have a valid place in movies as long as they help to develop the story. As much as I hate to admit it, Titanic did this very well. That movie was loaded with effects, but many of them were imperceptible, and were only there to make the movie more convincing.
BTW, if you happen to know what the special effects person actually did for Shawshank Redemption, I would love to know. If you haven't seen it, I would suggest that you do. It really is a classic.
Its not like George is up at Skywalker Ranch snorting his wealth up his nose like most of Hollywood. The man spends his money on making the "film" process better.
OK, wow.... Who cares what he does with his personal fortune? The point is that he's screwing with "art", seemingly with the intent of generating more revenue. It's one thing to make money off of your hard work and expression in order to continue such an activity, but it is quite another to do so with the sole intent of lining your pockets. From what I can tell, Lucas was abnout the art when he first started to pitch ep. 4, but since then, he's seemed to buckle against the very establishment he was fighting against. Once a movie is released to the public, I do not think it should be (sensitive eyes turn away) fucked with.
Perhaps I should have been more blatantly sarcastic. The point was that films have become far too reliant on special effects and that it is still possible for very good movies to be created in their absence. One of my favorite movies for example is The Shawshank Redemption... not one special effect.
I think eye-candy is becoming far too acceptable - generally at the expense of plot and convincing acting.
That's f'ing brilliant! I feel so much safer now.
*sigh*
Really, what good are cops nowadays anyway? I was backed into by some moron in a pickup a month ago, and the CHP wouldn't take a report because it happened on private property (shopping center), and the Sherrif's Dept didn't want anything to do with it because it was technically not a crime. In the meantime, I have a car with $1800 worth of damages, and an insurance company that's going to deny my claim because the guy that hit me is avoiding them (he has a DUI and a suspended license). My only option is to sue him, but I have no police report to demonstrate liability.:p
I really can see where you are coming from, and in some ways I would agree with you. However, is it possible to spark a revolution without the possibility of taking lives (which is also wrong)? Sometimes, desperate situations call for desperate measures. Most people are no more than cattle that will eat whatever is given them. It is up to the few that are willing to stand up and say they've had enough to make any real difference. It's easy to say the copyright infringment is black and white wrong, but I don't believe it is. I think it is an expression of popular opinion. I think it is the kindling of a revolt whereby the people make it known that the laws as they are now are not fair or just, and that they should be changed. It's really our only hope since Big Business has the money to bribe politicians to further their agenda and the general public doesn't.
I think of the situation in these terms:
During the US revolutionary war, the English were still marching in rank (as was the tradition of combat), but the revolutionaries basically reinvented guerilla warfare. The had inferior weapons and smaller forces, so they fought the only way they could - by taking small pecks at their attackers; fighting and running. They changed the field of combat and forced the English to compromise because their tactics were outdated and they did not have the foresight to adapt to a changing world. Our current situation with Big Media is no different.
I always thought the "reason/excuse" for piracy is simply the discontent of a large number of people with the cost of the BS that the media producers insist on shoving down our throats. To make matters worse, the erosion of fair-use rights caused by increased efforts to combat piracy serves only to devalue the product even further. These companies should really be working to make the general population *want* to give up their money by giving them something at a fair price rather than trying to resort to mob tactics by attempting to eradicate the "competition".
For a lot of people, piracy is only a supplement to a healthy media budget. Some simply cannot afford to purchase all that they are interested in, and if prices don't drop, piracy seems the way to go. And no, copyrigt infringement is not stealing. No one is losing anything but a potential sale, and if "random pirate" doesn't have the money to buy that movie/game/whatever, there really isn't any harm done.
At least someone in that court room still remember that Americans possess this thing called rights.
It's quite ironic that you would use the word *rights* on Terrorism Day. It has been exactly 3 years since that word has begun to lose its meaning.
Granted, the US is arguably the most powerful country in the world, but this power is nothing more than deception and manipulation. The US government is a lion tamer, while the population is the lion. With enough anger and conviction, the tables can be turned.
The "right to bear arms" was to facilitate a silent "4th branch" of the government.
It really is interesting that in several thousand or million years (depending on your beliefs), crime and antisocial behavior are still abundant. Certainly we've had enough time to legislate ourselves into utopia... or have we? The fact of the matter is that no matter what society in general thinks about a particular activity, there are always going to be people who feel strongly enough to continue to indulge their tendencies. Unless we live in a police state (oops, jinx), nothing is going to change. I in no way believe kiddie pr0n is OK, but the truth is that as long as people who produce it are able to collude with those that enjoy it, the cycle will continue (just as with any and every other vice imaginable).
Slashdot Mirror
Ack. DDR, IMO, is entirely repulsive.
OK, I hope you're a chick.... If not, I fear you for thinking scars are sexy.
Yeah, maybe if he was playing "Track & Field" on the NES.
I have been scarred for life by that movie. Sorry to say it, but when I was young, sci-fi was repulsive. My mom loved that movie, and my dad couldn't get enough of the Manhatten Project. Gah, 80's sci-fi haunts me to this day.
So I guess "A Boy and His Blob" wouldn't be a very good game to promote for diabetes....
For the uninitiated, it's an old NES game that involved jelly beans.
Gimmie a 'p'.
Gimmie an 'r'.
Gimmie an 'i'.
Gimmie an 'n'.
Gimmie a 't'.
Gimmie an 'f'.
What does it spell?
NERD!
wow, a reason for me to not be an idiot with HTML...
Great Seal
Has anyone here ever seen the movie Antitrust?
http://www.nsa.gov/museum/museu00029.cfm
Just because I don't want to lose the lifestyle that I have become accustomed to does not mean that I don't want the poor in India to have a chance at improving their life.
Please consider that your lifestyle is most likely leaps and bounds ahead of the average Indian. You can thank the country you happen to live in for that. But, why should it matter where you live? You're a person, and so is everyone that happens to live in India. I don't think opportunity in life should be limited by geography, and I also don't believe that you personally are any "better" than any random person living in a 3rd-world country. Perhaps my argument is bordering on evil communism, but it seems as if our capitalist society has caused us to believe that our system is superior, and that anyone who lives here deserves a better life than the rest of the world. That's simply not true.
Actually, I wasn't approaching the issue with any particular bias. I was questioning whether the "older" technology (better or not) was simply rooted in nostalgia or personal preference.
I feel I have a good ear, but I suppose I am by no means an arrogant, pretentious audiophile. However, I am open to the opinion of those that are. Whether I have the money/interest or not really isn't the issue. I was simply searching for differing viewpoints on the matter.
I wonder if this desire for that "warm, soothing" sound will die when those that grew up with it do as well. Is the attraction anything more than conditioning and sentimentality? Sure, a lot modern digital music could be called cold and clinical, but as a perfect representation of what the artist intended to create, is there really anything missing?
and outsourcing to other counties doesn't help.
In fact, it does help. It helps other people whp happen to be less privileged than US citizens. I'm really tired of that horribly ethnocentric viewpoint that people always seem to make. The US does not include the only people that are worth a damn. All people matter, not just the ones who live here. It's a changing world; one that's getting smaller by the day. Perhaps we should be less concerned about useless borders and begin to worry about humanity as a whole.
Oh, and for the millionth time, would the proponents of wind power factor in the cost of energy storage into their ridiculous claims that it's possible to affordably replace fossil fuel and nuclear generators with wind right now?
Furthermore, we should:
*Underclock our 3 Gig+ processors.
*Reduce production of throw-away electronics.
*Drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
*Stop producing resource-wasteful meat.
None of these will happen however, because Americans possess an incredible sense of entitlement and indulgence. Complaining about unclean power while engaging in wasteful activites is hypocritical. A perfect example of this sort of attitude is the huge push to find a cure for AIDS - a completely preventable disease. But, people want to keep doing what they do regardless of the consequences, sometimes to the point where they try to redefine the consequences rather than simply accepting responsibility.
Part of me is still hopeful that we will find some holes in the relativity theory.
Well, how about this: dark matter is made of angels. Angels must have mass, but we can obviously can not see them.
Remember that metric/standard conversion fiasco at JPL a few years ago? That was the handiwork of an Agent.
While I agree effects should be secondary to the story, I think the real talent is in creating effects that are as realistic as possible, so that the audience doesn't question what they're seeing, and can get swept up in the story. That's probably why there was an effects guy on Shawshank, and why you didn't notice him... he did his job well.
Very true. You make a good point, and I suppose I should qualify my previous statements by saying that I believe special effects do have a valid place in movies as long as they help to develop the story. As much as I hate to admit it, Titanic did this very well. That movie was loaded with effects, but many of them were imperceptible, and were only there to make the movie more convincing.
BTW, if you happen to know what the special effects person actually did for Shawshank Redemption, I would love to know. If you haven't seen it, I would suggest that you do. It really is a classic.
Its not like George is up at Skywalker Ranch snorting his wealth up his nose like most of Hollywood. The man spends his money on making the "film" process better.
OK, wow.... Who cares what he does with his personal fortune? The point is that he's screwing with "art", seemingly with the intent of generating more revenue. It's one thing to make money off of your hard work and expression in order to continue such an activity, but it is quite another to do so with the sole intent of lining your pockets. From what I can tell, Lucas was abnout the art when he first started to pitch ep. 4, but since then, he's seemed to buckle against the very establishment he was fighting against. Once a movie is released to the public, I do not think it should be (sensitive eyes turn away) fucked with.
Just wait, once the 3rd trilogy tanks at the box office, Lucas will deny that Star Wars ever even existed. Greedo shot first? Huh? Who's Greedo?
Perhaps I should have been more blatantly sarcastic. The point was that films have become far too reliant on special effects and that it is still possible for very good movies to be created in their absence. One of my favorite movies for example is The Shawshank Redemption... not one special effect.
I think eye-candy is becoming far too acceptable - generally at the expense of plot and convincing acting.
That's f'ing brilliant! I feel so much safer now. :p
*sigh*
Really, what good are cops nowadays anyway? I was backed into by some moron in a pickup a month ago, and the CHP wouldn't take a report because it happened on private property (shopping center), and the Sherrif's Dept didn't want anything to do with it because it was technically not a crime. In the meantime, I have a car with $1800 worth of damages, and an insurance company that's going to deny my claim because the guy that hit me is avoiding them (he has a DUI and a suspended license). My only option is to sue him, but I have no police report to demonstrate liability.
This just in:
Full-length movie (1.5 hours) created on 129,600 frames of film.
I really can see where you are coming from, and in some ways I would agree with you. However, is it possible to spark a revolution without the possibility of taking lives (which is also wrong)? Sometimes, desperate situations call for desperate measures. Most people are no more than cattle that will eat whatever is given them. It is up to the few that are willing to stand up and say they've had enough to make any real difference. It's easy to say the copyright infringment is black and white wrong, but I don't believe it is. I think it is an expression of popular opinion. I think it is the kindling of a revolt whereby the people make it known that the laws as they are now are not fair or just, and that they should be changed. It's really our only hope since Big Business has the money to bribe politicians to further their agenda and the general public doesn't.
I think of the situation in these terms:
During the US revolutionary war, the English were still marching in rank (as was the tradition of combat), but the revolutionaries basically reinvented guerilla warfare. The had inferior weapons and smaller forces, so they fought the only way they could - by taking small pecks at their attackers; fighting and running. They changed the field of combat and forced the English to compromise because their tactics were outdated and they did not have the foresight to adapt to a changing world. Our current situation with Big Media is no different.
I always thought the "reason/excuse" for piracy is simply the discontent of a large number of people with the cost of the BS that the media producers insist on shoving down our throats. To make matters worse, the erosion of fair-use rights caused by increased efforts to combat piracy serves only to devalue the product even further. These companies should really be working to make the general population *want* to give up their money by giving them something at a fair price rather than trying to resort to mob tactics by attempting to eradicate the "competition".
For a lot of people, piracy is only a supplement to a healthy media budget. Some simply cannot afford to purchase all that they are interested in, and if prices don't drop, piracy seems the way to go. And no, copyrigt infringement is not stealing. No one is losing anything but a potential sale, and if "random pirate" doesn't have the money to buy that movie/game/whatever, there really isn't any harm done.
At least someone in that court room still remember that Americans possess this thing called rights.
It's quite ironic that you would use the word *rights* on Terrorism Day. It has been exactly 3 years since that word has begun to lose its meaning.
Granted, the US is arguably the most powerful country in the world, but this power is nothing more than deception and manipulation. The US government is a lion tamer, while the population is the lion. With enough anger and conviction, the tables can be turned.
The "right to bear arms" was to facilitate a silent "4th branch" of the government.
It really is interesting that in several thousand or million years (depending on your beliefs), crime and antisocial behavior are still abundant. Certainly we've had enough time to legislate ourselves into utopia... or have we? The fact of the matter is that no matter what society in general thinks about a particular activity, there are always going to be people who feel strongly enough to continue to indulge their tendencies. Unless we live in a police state (oops, jinx), nothing is going to change. I in no way believe kiddie pr0n is OK, but the truth is that as long as people who produce it are able to collude with those that enjoy it, the cycle will continue (just as with any and every other vice imaginable).