It is imperative that we use the word "rape" as many times as we can in describing the changes made to a science fiction film from the 70s. Most importantly, try to fit in the phrase "Lucas raped my childhood," but really, any sort of bizarre hyperbolic use of the word "rape" is mandatory.
Yeah, the Illuminati just *want* us to think the capsule crashed. Meanwhile, the real capsule is out there and has discovered evidence of the original alien greys that we captured and tamed into mindless mutants.
Whoah! That's some pretty damning evidence. Michael Moore took something printed in a newspaper and flashed it on the screen as if it had appeared elsewhere in a newspaper? Now I'm suspicious.
No, he took something that was some random person's letter to the editor and retyped it so it looked like a HARD NEWS ARTICLE ON THE FRONT PAGE. It was headlined "Gore Won The 2000 Election."
If you are honestly telling me that it's not dishonest to take someone's letter to the editor and make it look like a front page news article and cite it as evidence, you are more biased than you're willing to admit. It's almost hilarious how absurd it is to cite someone's opinion letter as a hard news article.
Guess what, the guy who actually wrote the original letter is a professor, who even expressed distaste with Moore's tactic of misleading viewers with his letter.
Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen.
Oh, we do? So all those soldiers were running around raping and pillaging and cutting off heads like Ghengis Khan? Even when he ADMITS HE NEVER SAW IT AND WAS ONLY REPORTING WHAT HE "HEARD?"
Bush has flubbed on things himself, so don't assume I'm biased here. But Kerry is such a weasal, IMO.
The Times, Newsday, and more all show Bush with an 11 point lead. Don't know what else to tell you except that you're clearly ignoring a statistical figure simply because you don't like its implications.
I disagree. A documentary is supposed to objectively document something. It's like a visual textbook. Nature documentaries aren't biased. It's all about filming the lions, explaining how they live, what they eat, and so on. Those are objective facts.
The reason Michael Moore pisses me off isn't because of his politics. It's because there are a lot of sheep who believe everything he says. If I'm told that I'm going to be watching a documentary on the Bush administration, I expect to be given actual hard facts, with sources, and viewpoints from both sides aired in the film. I expect the film to prove its own points irrefutably. But Fahrenheit 9/11's falsehoods have been extensively documented online. Showing Bush playing golf is silly. Moore's man Kerry is always seen windsurfing, riding bicycles, etc. The film is a one-sided worldview that doesn't reach a conclusion--it tries to prove one from the outset. Even from the beginning, where Moore reports that Al Gore won the election...despite a joint study by five independent journalists including the Washington Times, CNN, and others which showed that no matter which way the votes were counted, Bush won (note that despite that, I still believe the Supreme Court should have given time to count the votes...but the point is that Moore picks and chooses his sources).
Quite simply, Michael Moore's film is not a documentary. Facts are cherry-picked and spun to reflect a certain viewpoint. He is giving his opinions throughout the movie. That is not a documentary, that is an op-ed piece, or a propaganda piece. The film is propaganda because it is trying to put forth a persuasive argument to convince the viewer of something. A documentary doesn't try to convince you of anything. It merely documents. Saying "all documentaries are biased" is a strange phrase I haven't heard until recently, from people trying to justify Moore's methods. When I grew up, documentaries actually attempted not to be biased.
Oh, and this load of crap about Michael Moore not seeking Best Documentary Oscar because he wants to "give others a chance" is so hilarious. He's not going for Best Documentary because he knows it wouldn't win--it's not a documentary. What a load of spin. Bowling For Columbine has already been torn to shreds as a hacked-together spin piece (Watch Charlton Heston's tie change midway through his speech. Why? Because it's two speeches a year apart edited together! Geez...), and with Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has shown himself as the spinster he is. He completely ignores certain polls and only cites unnamed sources in arguing his viewpoints. When actually put to the test and challenged like he was on O'Reilly, he crashes and burns.
This is the same sort of spinster crap that spawns movies like Outfoxed!, where the filmmaker actually zooms in on a split-screen interview so that all you see is the Republican, and then claims that only Republicans appear on the show! Or quotes a reporter praising someone in the Bush administration, meanwhile without showing you the full footage where the reporter is actually quoting someone from the Bush administration. To the world of the extreme left, anything popular that isn't leftist is suddenly a Republican conspiracy.
And then, of course, after a year of anti-Bush ads and "Bush=Hitler" garbage and feature film "documentaries", some veterans put out a couple of ads in a few states and suddenly there's a "smear campaign" going on! Bush is supposed to condemn the ads, even though Kerry never condemned any of his 527 ads or films the entire year they were running. Those evil Republicans. Poor, innocent Democrats. To me, it sounds like sour grapes over the fact that one of Bush's 527 groups was more effective with less money than all of MoveOn.org's spin pieces put together. Kerry is now the worst-rated candidate in history compared to an incumbent--a double-digit lead in the polls.
Politics has become a battle between two organized religions, and Michael Moore is the spinster for
As an American, I find your Canadian government...disturbing.:) For instance, regardless of what you think about Fox News, the fact that your government actually *chooses for you* that you can't see it is a bit frightening.
Actually, there were several things that weren't facts. The Pantagraph "retyping" comes to mind (where he took some yahoo's random letter to the editor from the opinion page of the Pantagraph, retyped it to make it look like a front page headline, then flashed it on screen as he narrated...even changing the date a little so it would be hard to locate the original issue).
Let's just say that your standard college journalism class would flunk Michael Moore for his misleading tactics. He hurts the left more than he does the right.
According to a UCLA/Standford study, it's more centrist then CNN. What's on the front page of Drudge right now? "MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ TOP 1000." Let me know when I see that reported on the news channels. Right now, it's all about the aftermath of Hurricane Frances.
What people do is target you in groups by modding you down with the Overrated modifier. It seems to be a little-known "feature" that Overrated mods don't appear in meta-moderation. People abuse this all the time to lower your karma without risk of having the moderations backfire on them.
Honestly, I'll go to places like the Drudge Report and Spinsanity for my political news. Slashdot's tech news is already laughably inaccurate and exagerrated at best, partly due to ridiculous editors and partly due to the fact that this site runs on user submissions--I can't imagine the kind of shenanigans that will go on in an actual Politics section of Slashdot. The very idea is funny.
Creative's patent issue was regarding a shadow algorithm. There is no EAX in Doom 3. The reason only 5.1 systems get surround sound is because of the very basic sound system.
Carmack handled the sound engine. Apparently, he cut the thing in half and was proud at how less complex it had become.
What's the point when games like Doom 3 don't even use EAX or other sound-modelling technologies? Half-Life 1 back in '99 was doing echoes and reverb based on the size of the room, and even now in 2004, a game like Doom 3 still plays its sounds effects raw, like you're in a closet.
Doom 3 really suffered to me because when I blasted a shotgun or heard an Imp shriek in those shiny metallic rooms, it didn't sound like I was in a shiny metallic room.
A lot of people have the misconception that the entire OS X desktop is hardware-accelerated. OS X just uses the GPU as a high-speed 2D blitter. The windows aren't being rendered as 3D objects--this is different from what will be happening in Longhorn, which will be an entire 3D experience (granted you must be running the highest tier).
It was reported on Slashdot. They are moving the graphics in Longhorn to usermode and even enabling sharing of 3D resources, so you could have multiple 3D-accelerated applications accessing the GPU at the same time. The idea is to make it so driver crashes don't affect the usability experience--they mentioned restarting the GPU drivers after a crash without the user even knowing something went wrong.
You get those blobs because of how overlay drivers work. Longhorn will allow shared access of 3D resources. In fact, everything will be hardware accelerated 3D objects.
Contrary to popular belief, OS X is not rendering its output using the 3D capabilities of the video card but is merely using it as a high-speed 2D blitter.
The other two desktop operating systems out there have had it for at least five years and are working on newer things. Am I really seeing a bunch of people getting excited over translucencies and shadows? These are things that have been commonplace for years.
There are WAY more fundamental issues that need to be addressed for widespread Linux desktop adoption, from APIs to core architecture changes. But hey, at least our cramped KDE menu has translucency now.:P
This is just another sensationalist article with little grounding in reality. It's the stats for W3schools. Surprise, Mozilla has gone up a little on a website geared toward technical web designers. As pointed out by the parent, most of it was at the expense of IE5.
Slashdot, of course, reports it like a global stat--"Mozilla Usage Doubles In 9 Months!" The summary doesn't even mention the source at all which is very dishonest. I guarantee there will be people linking to this and using it as evidence for their arguments in future posts. You know that if Microsoft put out a stat like that, everyone would be pointing out the conveniently hidden fact that w3schools is a web designers site and does not represent universal Mozilla usage statistics (Google Zeitgeist was a more accurate reflector, and back when it was still up, there were no changes in Mozilla's usage levels).
If this was an honest tech news site, the headline and article summary would have pointed out the truth. I think even CmdrTaco would have written trailing text explaining that the stats are coming from W3Schools, a technical web designer site, had he been the one posting this article. For the record, I am not surprised Michael is at the helm on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
It is imperative that we use the word "rape" as many times as we can in describing the changes made to a science fiction film from the 70s. Most importantly, try to fit in the phrase "Lucas raped my childhood," but really, any sort of bizarre hyperbolic use of the word "rape" is mandatory.
Modding me "Overrated" because you don't like my opinion and can't refute my facts illustrates the worst type of fascism.
Yeah, the Illuminati just *want* us to think the capsule crashed. Meanwhile, the real capsule is out there and has discovered evidence of the original alien greys that we captured and tamed into mindless mutants.
Nothing to see here, folks, Helios is in control.
Whoah! That's some pretty damning evidence. Michael Moore took something printed in a newspaper and flashed it on the screen as if it had appeared elsewhere in a newspaper? Now I'm suspicious.
No, he took something that was some random person's letter to the editor and retyped it so it looked like a HARD NEWS ARTICLE ON THE FRONT PAGE. It was headlined "Gore Won The 2000 Election."
If you are honestly telling me that it's not dishonest to take someone's letter to the editor and make it look like a front page news article and cite it as evidence, you are more biased than you're willing to admit. It's almost hilarious how absurd it is to cite someone's opinion letter as a hard news article.
Guess what, the guy who actually wrote the original letter is a professor, who even expressed distaste with Moore's tactic of misleading viewers with his letter.
Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen.
Oh, we do? So all those soldiers were running around raping and pillaging and cutting off heads like Ghengis Khan? Even when he ADMITS HE NEVER SAW IT AND WAS ONLY REPORTING WHAT HE "HEARD?"
Bush has flubbed on things himself, so don't assume I'm biased here. But Kerry is such a weasal, IMO.
W is for Wrong.
What is the F in John Kerry for? "Flip-flop"? Come on, what are these guys doing, running for president of the 8th grade? I hate election years.
The Times, Newsday, and more all show Bush with an 11 point lead. Don't know what else to tell you except that you're clearly ignoring a statistical figure simply because you don't like its implications.
Wait... is the best thing that you can come up with the fact that they got the date on an article wrong and changed the font? Seriously?
Um, no.
I disagree. A documentary is supposed to objectively document something. It's like a visual textbook. Nature documentaries aren't biased. It's all about filming the lions, explaining how they live, what they eat, and so on. Those are objective facts.
The reason Michael Moore pisses me off isn't because of his politics. It's because there are a lot of sheep who believe everything he says. If I'm told that I'm going to be watching a documentary on the Bush administration, I expect to be given actual hard facts, with sources, and viewpoints from both sides aired in the film. I expect the film to prove its own points irrefutably. But Fahrenheit 9/11's falsehoods have been extensively documented online. Showing Bush playing golf is silly. Moore's man Kerry is always seen windsurfing, riding bicycles, etc. The film is a one-sided worldview that doesn't reach a conclusion--it tries to prove one from the outset. Even from the beginning, where Moore reports that Al Gore won the election...despite a joint study by five independent journalists including the Washington Times, CNN, and others which showed that no matter which way the votes were counted, Bush won (note that despite that, I still believe the Supreme Court should have given time to count the votes...but the point is that Moore picks and chooses his sources).
Quite simply, Michael Moore's film is not a documentary. Facts are cherry-picked and spun to reflect a certain viewpoint. He is giving his opinions throughout the movie. That is not a documentary, that is an op-ed piece, or a propaganda piece. The film is propaganda because it is trying to put forth a persuasive argument to convince the viewer of something. A documentary doesn't try to convince you of anything. It merely documents. Saying "all documentaries are biased" is a strange phrase I haven't heard until recently, from people trying to justify Moore's methods. When I grew up, documentaries actually attempted not to be biased.
Oh, and this load of crap about Michael Moore not seeking Best Documentary Oscar because he wants to "give others a chance" is so hilarious. He's not going for Best Documentary because he knows it wouldn't win--it's not a documentary. What a load of spin. Bowling For Columbine has already been torn to shreds as a hacked-together spin piece (Watch Charlton Heston's tie change midway through his speech. Why? Because it's two speeches a year apart edited together! Geez...), and with Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has shown himself as the spinster he is. He completely ignores certain polls and only cites unnamed sources in arguing his viewpoints. When actually put to the test and challenged like he was on O'Reilly, he crashes and burns.
This is the same sort of spinster crap that spawns movies like Outfoxed!, where the filmmaker actually zooms in on a split-screen interview so that all you see is the Republican, and then claims that only Republicans appear on the show! Or quotes a reporter praising someone in the Bush administration, meanwhile without showing you the full footage where the reporter is actually quoting someone from the Bush administration. To the world of the extreme left, anything popular that isn't leftist is suddenly a Republican conspiracy.
And then, of course, after a year of anti-Bush ads and "Bush=Hitler" garbage and feature film "documentaries", some veterans put out a couple of ads in a few states and suddenly there's a "smear campaign" going on! Bush is supposed to condemn the ads, even though Kerry never condemned any of his 527 ads or films the entire year they were running. Those evil Republicans. Poor, innocent Democrats. To me, it sounds like sour grapes over the fact that one of Bush's 527 groups was more effective with less money than all of MoveOn.org's spin pieces put together. Kerry is now the worst-rated candidate in history compared to an incumbent--a double-digit lead in the polls.
Politics has become a battle between two organized religions, and Michael Moore is the spinster for
As an American, I find your Canadian government...disturbing. :) For instance, regardless of what you think about Fox News, the fact that your government actually *chooses for you* that you can't see it is a bit frightening.
Actually, there were several things that weren't facts. The Pantagraph "retyping" comes to mind (where he took some yahoo's random letter to the editor from the opinion page of the Pantagraph, retyped it to make it look like a front page headline, then flashed it on screen as he narrated...even changing the date a little so it would be hard to locate the original issue).
Let's just say that your standard college journalism class would flunk Michael Moore for his misleading tactics. He hurts the left more than he does the right.
According to a UCLA/Standford study, it's more centrist then CNN. What's on the front page of Drudge right now? "MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ TOP 1000." Let me know when I see that reported on the news channels. Right now, it's all about the aftermath of Hurricane Frances.
Yeah, but it'll sure generate page hits, won't it?
I would hope that moderators are fair enough to send comments up or down depending on their quality, not whether their point of view is agreeable.
You must be new here.
Oh, wait...
What people do is target you in groups by modding you down with the Overrated modifier. It seems to be a little-known "feature" that Overrated mods don't appear in meta-moderation. People abuse this all the time to lower your karma without risk of having the moderations backfire on them.
Honestly, I'll go to places like the Drudge Report and Spinsanity for my political news. Slashdot's tech news is already laughably inaccurate and exagerrated at best, partly due to ridiculous editors and partly due to the fact that this site runs on user submissions--I can't imagine the kind of shenanigans that will go on in an actual Politics section of Slashdot. The very idea is funny.
Creative's patent issue was regarding a shadow algorithm. There is no EAX in Doom 3. The reason only 5.1 systems get surround sound is because of the very basic sound system.
Carmack handled the sound engine. Apparently, he cut the thing in half and was proud at how less complex it had become.
What's the point when games like Doom 3 don't even use EAX or other sound-modelling technologies? Half-Life 1 back in '99 was doing echoes and reverb based on the size of the room, and even now in 2004, a game like Doom 3 still plays its sounds effects raw, like you're in a closet.
Doom 3 really suffered to me because when I blasted a shotgun or heard an Imp shriek in those shiny metallic rooms, it didn't sound like I was in a shiny metallic room.
A lot of people have the misconception that the entire OS X desktop is hardware-accelerated. OS X just uses the GPU as a high-speed 2D blitter. The windows aren't being rendered as 3D objects--this is different from what will be happening in Longhorn, which will be an entire 3D experience (granted you must be running the highest tier).
It was reported on Slashdot. They are moving the graphics in Longhorn to usermode and even enabling sharing of 3D resources, so you could have multiple 3D-accelerated applications accessing the GPU at the same time. The idea is to make it so driver crashes don't affect the usability experience--they mentioned restarting the GPU drivers after a crash without the user even knowing something went wrong.
even though it was based on Quake1/2
Just pointing out, this is a common mistake. Half-Life was based on a heavily modified Quake 1 engine. Not 2.
You get those blobs because of how overlay drivers work. Longhorn will allow shared access of 3D resources. In fact, everything will be hardware accelerated 3D objects.
Contrary to popular belief, OS X is not rendering its output using the 3D capabilities of the video card but is merely using it as a high-speed 2D blitter.
(Has Windows really had Translucencies and shadows since 1999?)
Yes, Windows 2000 has built-in translucency. Don't remember if menus cast shadows but the mouse cursor certainly did.
The other two desktop operating systems out there have had it for at least five years and are working on newer things. Am I really seeing a bunch of people getting excited over translucencies and shadows? These are things that have been commonplace for years.
:P
There are WAY more fundamental issues that need to be addressed for widespread Linux desktop adoption, from APIs to core architecture changes. But hey, at least our cramped KDE menu has translucency now.
This is just another sensationalist article with little grounding in reality. It's the stats for W3schools. Surprise, Mozilla has gone up a little on a website geared toward technical web designers. As pointed out by the parent, most of it was at the expense of IE5.
Slashdot, of course, reports it like a global stat--"Mozilla Usage Doubles In 9 Months!" The summary doesn't even mention the source at all which is very dishonest. I guarantee there will be people linking to this and using it as evidence for their arguments in future posts. You know that if Microsoft put out a stat like that, everyone would be pointing out the conveniently hidden fact that w3schools is a web designers site and does not represent universal Mozilla usage statistics (Google Zeitgeist was a more accurate reflector, and back when it was still up, there were no changes in Mozilla's usage levels).
If this was an honest tech news site, the headline and article summary would have pointed out the truth. I think even CmdrTaco would have written trailing text explaining that the stats are coming from W3Schools, a technical web designer site, had he been the one posting this article. For the record, I am not surprised Michael is at the helm on this one.