Several point out that Google isn't a hardware manufacturer. That's true, but neither is Microsoft, and being a hardware manufacturer doesn't mean that you're not a cartel trying to veto platform innovations. Hardware manufacturers always have an incentive to break the back of app developers. Apple does it with a 30% revenue split, Verizon used to do it with exclusive deals and expensive SDKs and qualification.
If the OMA ran the world, you'd still be surfing Yahoo over WAP and paying per kilobyte.
Because the OMA is a confederation of the losers? Because its a cartel devised to give network operators a veto on applications and platform innovation? Google isn't a member, either.
A senior OSS licensor using its market position and services to retaliate against junior redistributors, essentially in order to protect the integrity of the brand, would be an interesting precedent. Particularly if the senior licensor owned a company that directly competed with its junior licensees. Which in this case, it does.
It's a freaking camera. A book by it's operator would be more interesting.
The camera's operator was a guy named Gil Taylor. Taylor is famous as a british DP for shooting Dr. Strangelove and the Richard Lester's Beatles films, A Hard Day's Night and HELP!, among other things, but he was a notorious fuddy-duddy ass on the set of Star Wars and was constantly undermining Lucas to the crew. He's had little positive to say about the experience.
He's still alive, at 97, if you wanna shoot him an email:)
I know of no contract ot union deal that locked Panavision cameras in (I'm a member of IATSE, why does everyone always blame the union?). The real reason was Panavison had a patent to the world's first non-distorting 2.35 CinemaScope lens system, and they made the lens mountings incompatible with anything but Panavison camera bodies.
Panavison rarely sells cameras, and the entire package's market value without the provenance is probably at least a quarter million dollars.
This equipment is just going to get rarer. Don't have the link at the moment, but were you aware that Panavison, Arri and Aaton, the last 35mm camera manufacturers, haven't actually built a new camera in about 18 months? This gear is EOLd and increasingly harder to get a hold of.
Unfortunately zero banks in the US (or Australia) offers SecurID. PayPal does, but they don't really offer modern bank features, like bill pay or check/"cheque" writing, and the average bank wouldn't want to support such a thing, because there's no demand and it would intimidate customers -- irrationally, but so what? You'd need a bank reg.
Stories like this make me want to put all my money in Bitcoins. I HATE the whole Bitcoin concept and think its a crock, but with a Bitcoin at least I'm in charge of the security policy.
If you need proof that stuff doesn't have to be believable and realistic, watch Dogville or Manderlay
It's interesting you mention those, since those are great examples of von Trier, not working completely in Dogme 95 mode but definitely integrating Dogme 95 principles and using them for effect. Von Trier's insight into the Dogme 95 approach was that using a bare minimum of equipment and tricks often had the effect of making the films seem even more phony, but like New Theater, it could make the film much more confrontational with the audience and force them to do some actual mental work.
When you're able to present a setting, like a spacefaring 23rd century warship, as a fait accompli, perfectly rendered and credible, in theory this should free up people's minds to appreciate the story, because they don't have to go through the hoops of suspending their disbelief. But CGI is very stimulating and entertaining by itself, so as often as not the VFX become a big part of the entertainment value of the film; CGI is simply much easier to control, more reliable, and cheaper over time than actors and writers. So you end up with a movie that's all icing (CGI) and no cake (story, character, performance...).
I disagree, perhaps you could say they are all that is required "for the lazy of mind." When they're used correctly however, I feel they can enhance a strong story.
CGI can be extremely lazy -- a practical special effect has a way of making the filmmaker take the stuff around it more seriously, and to do a lot more thinking about what they actually need, because it's so expensive in time and effort, and you might only get one chance.
If anything is true about CGI, it's that its, at its best, completely un-spontaneous and calculated, and at its worst, there's no real performance in it, and directors (and their producers, their editors, their wives, children, pets, etc) can put them through endless iterations, and what you end up with is the cinematic equivalent of KFC mashed potatoes: by all means mostly potato, but produced by 10 different facilities across the continent, machined, congealed, containing vats of chemicals, and judged not by how good it tastes but by what minimum number of people will return it for a refund.
Apple is less likely to do so as they control the hardware and software.
I would agree that they have more incentive to make sure things work, and they have more liberty to make the necessary changes, but these don't always translate into better outcomes. They have so far, though.
And here I would have thought that the biggest obstacle would be one or the other of the two nations that have already stated that they will NOT accept restrictions on CO2 emissions - China and India.
Expecting China and India to abide by a regime wherein they have to trade emission credits with people who have a 100 year head start on the industrial revolution was probably always going to be a non-starter.
The USA isn't really likely to do so, but at least it's admitted of the possibility, unlike China and India.
When exactly did we do that? Some of us, like Bill Clinton, were for it, and some were against. The againsts prevailed, while allowing the fors a fig leaf to claim that we "tried" to get it ratified. South Park called it America's founding principle: "Democracy means you can have your cake and eat it too."
The difference between China and the US is that China has a strong mercantilist industrial policy that protects its native business and speaks with one voice -- that's why authoritarianism is good at foreign relations. The US government on the other hand talks a good game about protecting native industry but never actually does anything decisive, under the rationale that it would be "picking favorites" and any government action that supports American labor per se is "social democracy."
I posted a question on his page, but just because a roll of 16mm has perfs down both sides of the frame doesn't necessarily mean its a "workprint," which would imply that it's the actual film Warren physically edited. It could just be a dupe or a lab intermediate, which is possible considering it was "Property of Emerson" -- distributors aren't supposed to take possession of original production materials.
If he can find the actual tape splices in the print, or even better, he can find camera logs or lab reports that match the edge numbers of this print, he probably ha the genuine article.
Also if you have 20 minutes an are at all interested in this stuff, check out Hotel Torgo on Amazon instant streaming, it's a documentary about Manos made a few years ago, and they actually found all the old sets, still standing.
The company responds with marketing and by lowering it's price.
Right, but they're not lowering their price as much as the generic. They're negotiating deals with your insurance company so your co-pay for the name brand will be lower than generics, even though the rate the insurance company actually pays for brand-name Lipitor would be higher than the generic, so you save $5 on a copay but the insurance risk pool loses $50, because the drug company is insulating you from the underlying costs and distorting your buying decision.
It's classic drug company tactic- they'll hand out "coupons" or "drug benefit cards" that defray the excess cost of a brand-name copay over a generic copay, so if your brand-name copay on a drug is $40 and the generic is $15, Pfizer will pay you the $25 difference to buy the brand name. They can afford the difference because they're probably profiting over $100 on the bottle, you just don't see the cost to your insurance company at the point-of-sale, it gets turned into higher premiums. It's a big part of why prescription drug insurance is so expensive in the US, several states have banned manufacturer drug coupons and This American Life did a whole episode on it a year or two ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Obscure, but I got it.
Several point out that Google isn't a hardware manufacturer. That's true, but neither is Microsoft, and being a hardware manufacturer doesn't mean that you're not a cartel trying to veto platform innovations. Hardware manufacturers always have an incentive to break the back of app developers. Apple does it with a 30% revenue split, Verizon used to do it with exclusive deals and expensive SDKs and qualification.
If the OMA ran the world, you'd still be surfing Yahoo over WAP and paying per kilobyte.
Because the OMA is a confederation of the losers? Because its a cartel devised to give network operators a veto on applications and platform innovation? Google isn't a member, either.
Google needs to drop the hammer on that bullshit.
A senior OSS licensor using its market position and services to retaliate against junior redistributors, essentially in order to protect the integrity of the brand, would be an interesting precedent. Particularly if the senior licensor owned a company that directly competed with its junior licensees. Which in this case, it does.
What's the matter with -print0? I'm curious.
touché, I've gotten it right before but not this time!
If you don't like a tool's name, export an alias.
It's not about typing commands as much as it's about making these work:
Versus these:
A lot of scripts you run into are just broken because of braindead assumptions.
It's a freaking camera. A book by it's operator would be more interesting.
The camera's operator was a guy named Gil Taylor. Taylor is famous as a british DP for shooting Dr. Strangelove and the Richard Lester's Beatles films, A Hard Day's Night and HELP!, among other things, but he was a notorious fuddy-duddy ass on the set of Star Wars and was constantly undermining Lucas to the crew. He's had little positive to say about the experience.
He's still alive, at 97, if you wanna shoot him an email :)
I know of no contract ot union deal that locked Panavision cameras in (I'm a member of IATSE, why does everyone always blame the union?). The real reason was Panavison had a patent to the world's first non-distorting 2.35 CinemaScope lens system, and they made the lens mountings incompatible with anything but Panavison camera bodies.
Panavison rarely sells cameras, and the entire package's market value without the provenance is probably at least a quarter million dollars.
This equipment is just going to get rarer. Don't have the link at the moment, but were you aware that Panavison, Arri and Aaton, the last 35mm camera manufacturers, haven't actually built a new camera in about 18 months? This gear is EOLd and increasingly harder to get a hold of.
I'm an HSBC customer in the US, after scouring their site I can find no mention of tokens or SecurID. It's annoying.
Maybe I spoke too soon.
Unfortunately zero banks in the US (or Australia) offers SecurID. PayPal does, but they don't really offer modern bank features, like bill pay or check/"cheque" writing, and the average bank wouldn't want to support such a thing, because there's no demand and it would intimidate customers -- irrationally, but so what? You'd need a bank reg.
Stories like this make me want to put all my money in Bitcoins. I HATE the whole Bitcoin concept and think its a crock, but with a Bitcoin at least I'm in charge of the security policy.
If you need proof that stuff doesn't have to be believable and realistic, watch Dogville or Manderlay
It's interesting you mention those, since those are great examples of von Trier, not working completely in Dogme 95 mode but definitely integrating Dogme 95 principles and using them for effect. Von Trier's insight into the Dogme 95 approach was that using a bare minimum of equipment and tricks often had the effect of making the films seem even more phony, but like New Theater, it could make the film much more confrontational with the audience and force them to do some actual mental work.
When you're able to present a setting, like a spacefaring 23rd century warship, as a fait accompli, perfectly rendered and credible, in theory this should free up people's minds to appreciate the story, because they don't have to go through the hoops of suspending their disbelief. But CGI is very stimulating and entertaining by itself, so as often as not the VFX become a big part of the entertainment value of the film; CGI is simply much easier to control, more reliable, and cheaper over time than actors and writers. So you end up with a movie that's all icing (CGI) and no cake (story, character, performance...).
I agree with your comment, but I think you misspelled chicken.
KFC mashed potatoes is the CGI, KFC chicken is the acting. I won't tell you what I think the gravy is.
I disagree, perhaps you could say they are all that is required "for the lazy of mind." When they're used correctly however, I feel they can enhance a strong story.
CGI can be extremely lazy -- a practical special effect has a way of making the filmmaker take the stuff around it more seriously, and to do a lot more thinking about what they actually need, because it's so expensive in time and effort, and you might only get one chance.
If anything is true about CGI, it's that its, at its best, completely un-spontaneous and calculated, and at its worst, there's no real performance in it, and directors (and their producers, their editors, their wives, children, pets, etc) can put them through endless iterations, and what you end up with is the cinematic equivalent of KFC mashed potatoes: by all means mostly potato, but produced by 10 different facilities across the continent, machined, congealed, containing vats of chemicals, and judged not by how good it tastes but by what minimum number of people will return it for a refund.
Ummmm, Graz is a town on the Mur in Austria, not Austrialia. However +61 is the country code of Australia. Some sort of bizzare joke.
I would agree that they have more incentive to make sure things work, and they have more liberty to make the necessary changes, but these don't always translate into better outcomes. They have so far, though.
People who own and use phones have a greater incentive to make a good phone OS than people who sell and provide service to phones.
That's good, he didn't mention that in TFA.
Expecting China and India to abide by a regime wherein they have to trade emission credits with people who have a 100 year head start on the industrial revolution was probably always going to be a non-starter.
When exactly did we do that? Some of us, like Bill Clinton, were for it, and some were against. The againsts prevailed, while allowing the fors a fig leaf to claim that we "tried" to get it ratified. South Park called it America's founding principle: "Democracy means you can have your cake and eat it too."
The difference between China and the US is that China has a strong mercantilist industrial policy that protects its native business and speaks with one voice -- that's why authoritarianism is good at foreign relations. The US government on the other hand talks a good game about protecting native industry but never actually does anything decisive, under the rationale that it would be "picking favorites" and any government action that supports American labor per se is "social democracy."
And now my comment on the original page has been deleted. Curious.
I posted a question on his page, but just because a roll of 16mm has perfs down both sides of the frame doesn't necessarily mean its a "workprint," which would imply that it's the actual film Warren physically edited. It could just be a dupe or a lab intermediate, which is possible considering it was "Property of Emerson" -- distributors aren't supposed to take possession of original production materials.
If he can find the actual tape splices in the print, or even better, he can find camera logs or lab reports that match the edge numbers of this print, he probably ha the genuine article.
Also if you have 20 minutes an are at all interested in this stuff, check out Hotel Torgo on Amazon instant streaming, it's a documentary about Manos made a few years ago, and they actually found all the old sets, still standing.
How about some complimentary crazy bread?
Right, but they're not lowering their price as much as the generic. They're negotiating deals with your insurance company so your co-pay for the name brand will be lower than generics, even though the rate the insurance company actually pays for brand-name Lipitor would be higher than the generic, so you save $5 on a copay but the insurance risk pool loses $50, because the drug company is insulating you from the underlying costs and distorting your buying decision.
It's classic drug company tactic- they'll hand out "coupons" or "drug benefit cards" that defray the excess cost of a brand-name copay over a generic copay, so if your brand-name copay on a drug is $40 and the generic is $15, Pfizer will pay you the $25 difference to buy the brand name. They can afford the difference because they're probably profiting over $100 on the bottle, you just don't see the cost to your insurance company at the point-of-sale, it gets turned into higher premiums. It's a big part of why prescription drug insurance is so expensive in the US, several states have banned manufacturer drug coupons and This American Life did a whole episode on it a year or two ago.