I've compiled XFree86 on my K6-2/300 a couple of years ago. Man, it took forever. Those were the days, but I wouldn't want to go back. *pats his Athlon 2200+*
Well, it is basic psychology, but a founding principle nonetheless. Skinner's work is a bit more complex than that, detailing different frequencies and pinpointing those that best lead to addicted behaviour. Random rewards with no discernible pattern will lead to a most frequent repetition, whereas a regularly timed reward will lead only to repetition when a reward is deemed feasible--at the next time in the regular pattern. But this is only a foundation, of course.
So how many grapefruits would it take to fill a refrigerator? Mine's 4.4 cubic feet, and since a grapefruit with a diameter of 3.25 inches has a volume of 0.083 cubic feet, I could probably fit 53 grapefruits in my fridge.
I think that the efficiency of a fridge should be measured in quantities of grapefruits.
*BOOM*
WHAT HAPPEN?
SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB
WE GET SIGNAL
Terrorists: HA HA HA
ALL YOUR WTC ARE BELONG TO US
YOU WILL NEVER SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME
Dubya: TAKE OFF EVERY ZIG!
FOR GREAT JUSTICE
A $2,500 donation to your local shelter will literally save the lives of dozens of animals.
And a $2,500 purchase at your local meat shop will put hundreds of dead animals to good use. That trap-neuter-return programme sounds expensive, and wasteful. I wouldn't support something like that. If one traps a cat, neuters it, and returns it to where it was trapped, what is the purpose of that cat's life? Why not just kill it? Hey, I don't hate animals; I have three cats myself. But when they get to be a problem, I don't think that spending thousands of dollars on the removal of cats' nuts is a practical use of funds. It's not like alley cats are an endangered species.
Yes, I was thinking of mentioning synthesized audio as well. And, if you look at some movies, they might as well have been written by computers. Just another formula movie, generated in seconds on your desktop! Custom movies generated while you wait for your popcorn to pop!
they can never compete in terms of 'realness.' You can't get much realer than a real thing.
So you've established the goals of CGI development. A real thing is indeed as real as it gets since it is a real thing (what a useless statement). Computer generated animation becomes more realistic as it develops, and eventually WILL be indistinguishable from a real actor. As computer power increases and price decreases, a CGI actor will become less expensive than a real actor. The price of a computer system and its operators can generate hundreds of CGI actors, and this will eventually cost less than hiring hundreds of real actors.
Another field this will really open up is indy films! As Moore's law progresses, rendering a host of CGI actors will be a lot less cheaper and EASIER than hiring a host of real actors. This will allow independent films to explore infinitely more possibilities, especially since good actors are hard to find, but voice actors are much cheaper and easier to come by.
I look forward to a day when CGI movies will be plentiful and be able to show things never before possible with camera-and-film methods.
A movie based on or inspired by a book can be a great thing. Some reason why people make movies based on books:
a) money
b) agreeing with the author and wanting to reach a wider audience by making a movie
c) seeing artistic potential in the atmosphere or ideas presented by the author
d) and others...
I think that David Lynch's rendition of Dune was great... It captured the essence of Frank Herbert's Dune. Another great book-made-movie is A Clockwork Orange. The book is great, but I think the movie is even better. Kubrick did a great job on this one. The atmosphere of the movie is simply superb, and really gets across the message that Burgess showed in the book.
I loved Lynch's Dune movie. It was certainly not a travesty as some people would like to call it. I thought it really captured the essence of Dune and, though it didn't follow the book completely, showed the story behind Dune superbly.
I hated the Sci-Fi Channel's Dune, however. They attempted to stay true to the book, and did somewhat. I didn't like some of the things they added or messed-up, nor did I like the horrid acting or nasty costume. It just did not capture Dune the way David Lynch did!
Yes, i'm sorry, I should have noted the NEW beetle to be the one to which I was referring. I find that people who like the new beetles tend to be rather superficial and pride themselves on being 'trendy,' a notion that disgusts me to my core. *grimace*
Ringworld? Ugh. Just because something may be easy to translate into a movie doesn't mean you should.
I found Ringworld to be, put frankly, a very crappy book. The entire concept behind the book I found very distasteful and just plain stupid. Saying that Ringworld is about a "ringworld" is like saying Dune is about a desert planet. The ringworld was only a setting for babbling about genetic luck, an idea that I find ludicrous and really turned me off to the book. Though how genetically lucky individuals were breeded was an interesting idea, the entire concept behind it I found extremely distasteful. The entire book was tedious and was basically an exploration of a concept in a crappy fictional story. I found the writing itself poor as well. I don't see how Ringworld is worth honouring. Admittedly, I haven't read any more of Niven's works (Ringworld has turned me off to him), so maybe some of his other books may be worth reading and movie-izing, but definitely not Ringworld.
I don't understand the problem so many people seem to have with Lynch's Dune rendition. I thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I watched it several times. Though I haven't seen any other of Lynch's films, I certainly do not think that Dune is by any means a bad movie. I think one of the main things that adds to the movie is the haunting soundtrack... In fact, a good soundtrack can make a good movie into a great movie. But I digress...
I, in fact, really enjoyed David Lynch's rendition of Dune. The sci-fi channel's rendition, however, was quite terrible. It remained more true to the plot, but David Lynch captured the more mystical essence of Dune. Though it didn't follow the plot very completely, it was (in my opinion) an excellent translation of Dune into film! The miniseries was just plain bad... bad acting, HORRIBLE costuming, and mispronounciations... WHY "Maud'Dib" and not the PROPER "Muad'Dib"? Is there an excuse for that?
Bah. Anyhow, I thought the miniseries was simply badly executed. There may have been good intent, and some of it was good as well, but there is no excuse for the overall shoddiness of the rest. I actually rented it on VHS, and watched the whole thing through. I found it one of those movies that you just want to throw out and never watch again after you watch it. I don't know what they're going to do with the 'sequel'; I hope they don't botch it as they did the first.
I am glad to see that i'm not alone in my disgust at the Sci-Fi channel's Dune interpretation. I REALLY didn't like how it was suggested that Paul and Jessica were faking their messiah-status to be saved from the ravages of the desert. True, the whole 'messiah' legend was created by the bene gesserit, but i certainly did not get the impression, which was show so strongly in the miniseries, from the novels! Also: Why did they misspell and mispronounce "Muad'Dib"? It is not "Maud'Dib" as was shown in the miniseries... why was it so? Also, I really didn't like how the Harkonnens were shown, nor did I like the... 'extravagant' or just plain stupid-looking dress of (as you mentioned) the bene gesserit and other characters. I, in fact, really liked the David Lynch version of Dune! Admittedly it wasn't as good as it could have been, I thought it captured Dune sufficiently. A helluva lot better than the miniseries, that's for sure. I really didn't like the miniseries; it left a bad taste in my mouth at the end.
That reminds me of a great Isaac Asimov short story I read. "The Feeling of Power" is its title. Taking place in the not-so-distant future, people have become so estranged from basic mathematical abilities that they have not even dreamed it possible to perform mathematical calculations without their pocket computers. However, once a bored technician teaches himself to multiply numbers with only a pencil and paper, whole new possibilities in warfare are re-opened. Eventually, this technician commits suicide because of the disasterous results the discovery of what he thought was just a harmless hobby had. It's very satirical but illustrates how we are becoming increasingly alienated from the roots of the things we use every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Chemical dependence... like food?
I thought my .sig is particularly prudent just now. :p
Soon, you'll start seeing "Built for ICQ2003" logos on the processors themselves.
I've compiled XFree86 on my K6-2/300 a couple of years ago. Man, it took forever. Those were the days, but I wouldn't want to go back. *pats his Athlon 2200+*
I usually do that, depending on what music I'm listening to. I also tend to occasionally suddenly get up and jump around.
Well, it is basic psychology, but a founding principle nonetheless. Skinner's work is a bit more complex than that, detailing different frequencies and pinpointing those that best lead to addicted behaviour. Random rewards with no discernible pattern will lead to a most frequent repetition, whereas a regularly timed reward will lead only to repetition when a reward is deemed feasible--at the next time in the regular pattern. But this is only a foundation, of course.
Complete lack of self-control? What do you mean by that?
So how many grapefruits would it take to fill a refrigerator? Mine's 4.4 cubic feet, and since a grapefruit with a diameter of 3.25 inches has a volume of 0.083 cubic feet, I could probably fit 53 grapefruits in my fridge.
I think that the efficiency of a fridge should be measured in quantities of grapefruits.
*BOOM*
WHAT HAPPEN?
SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB
WE GET SIGNAL
Terrorists: HA HA HA
ALL YOUR WTC ARE BELONG TO US
YOU WILL NEVER SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME
Dubya: TAKE OFF EVERY ZIG!
FOR GREAT JUSTICE
One of my fish died the other day.
*FLUSH*
A $2,500 donation to your local shelter will literally save the lives of dozens of animals.
And a $2,500 purchase at your local meat shop will put hundreds of dead animals to good use. That trap-neuter-return programme sounds expensive, and wasteful. I wouldn't support something like that. If one traps a cat, neuters it, and returns it to where it was trapped, what is the purpose of that cat's life? Why not just kill it? Hey, I don't hate animals; I have three cats myself. But when they get to be a problem, I don't think that spending thousands of dollars on the removal of cats' nuts is a practical use of funds. It's not like alley cats are an endangered species.
who said anything about a conspiracy?
/me rolls his eyes.
(i wish that there was an emoticon for that, i'd use it a lot.)
Perhaps you should exercise your PREVIEW button more often.
----
Yes, I was thinking of mentioning synthesized audio as well. And, if you look at some movies, they might as well have been written by computers. Just another formula movie, generated in seconds on your desktop! Custom movies generated while you wait for your popcorn to pop!
----
they can never compete in terms of 'realness.' You can't get much realer than a real thing.
So you've established the goals of CGI development. A real thing is indeed as real as it gets since it is a real thing (what a useless statement). Computer generated animation becomes more realistic as it develops, and eventually WILL be indistinguishable from a real actor. As computer power increases and price decreases, a CGI actor will become less expensive than a real actor. The price of a computer system and its operators can generate hundreds of CGI actors, and this will eventually cost less than hiring hundreds of real actors.
Another field this will really open up is indy films! As Moore's law progresses, rendering a host of CGI actors will be a lot less cheaper and EASIER than hiring a host of real actors. This will allow independent films to explore infinitely more possibilities, especially since good actors are hard to find, but voice actors are much cheaper and easier to come by.
I look forward to a day when CGI movies will be plentiful and be able to show things never before possible with camera-and-film methods.
----
----
I loved Lynch's Dune movie. It was certainly not a travesty as some people would like to call it. I thought it really captured the essence of Dune and, though it didn't follow the book completely, showed the story behind Dune superbly.
I hated the Sci-Fi Channel's Dune, however. They attempted to stay true to the book, and did somewhat. I didn't like some of the things they added or messed-up, nor did I like the horrid acting or nasty costume. It just did not capture Dune the way David Lynch did!
----
Yes, i'm sorry, I should have noted the NEW beetle to be the one to which I was referring. I find that people who like the new beetles tend to be rather superficial and pride themselves on being 'trendy,' a notion that disgusts me to my core. *grimace*
----
Ringworld? Ugh. Just because something may be easy to translate into a movie doesn't mean you should.
I found Ringworld to be, put frankly, a very crappy book. The entire concept behind the book I found very distasteful and just plain stupid. Saying that Ringworld is about a "ringworld" is like saying Dune is about a desert planet. The ringworld was only a setting for babbling about genetic luck, an idea that I find ludicrous and really turned me off to the book. Though how genetically lucky individuals were breeded was an interesting idea, the entire concept behind it I found extremely distasteful. The entire book was tedious and was basically an exploration of a concept in a crappy fictional story. I found the writing itself poor as well. I don't see how Ringworld is worth honouring. Admittedly, I haven't read any more of Niven's works (Ringworld has turned me off to him), so maybe some of his other books may be worth reading and movie-izing, but definitely not Ringworld.
But this whole post is very very off topic.
----
I don't understand the problem so many people seem to have with Lynch's Dune rendition. I thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I watched it several times. Though I haven't seen any other of Lynch's films, I certainly do not think that Dune is by any means a bad movie. I think one of the main things that adds to the movie is the haunting soundtrack... In fact, a good soundtrack can make a good movie into a great movie. But I digress...
----
I, in fact, really enjoyed David Lynch's rendition of Dune. The sci-fi channel's rendition, however, was quite terrible. It remained more true to the plot, but David Lynch captured the more mystical essence of Dune. Though it didn't follow the plot very completely, it was (in my opinion) an excellent translation of Dune into film! The miniseries was just plain bad... bad acting, HORRIBLE costuming, and mispronounciations... WHY "Maud'Dib" and not the PROPER "Muad'Dib"? Is there an excuse for that?
Bah. Anyhow, I thought the miniseries was simply badly executed. There may have been good intent, and some of it was good as well, but there is no excuse for the overall shoddiness of the rest. I actually rented it on VHS, and watched the whole thing through. I found it one of those movies that you just want to throw out and never watch again after you watch it. I don't know what they're going to do with the 'sequel'; I hope they don't botch it as they did the first.
----
I am glad to see that i'm not alone in my disgust at the Sci-Fi channel's Dune interpretation. I REALLY didn't like how it was suggested that Paul and Jessica were faking their messiah-status to be saved from the ravages of the desert. True, the whole 'messiah' legend was created by the bene gesserit, but i certainly did not get the impression, which was show so strongly in the miniseries, from the novels! Also: Why did they misspell and mispronounce "Muad'Dib"? It is not "Maud'Dib" as was shown in the miniseries... why was it so? Also, I really didn't like how the Harkonnens were shown, nor did I like the... 'extravagant' or just plain stupid-looking dress of (as you mentioned) the bene gesserit and other characters. I, in fact, really liked the David Lynch version of Dune! Admittedly it wasn't as good as it could have been, I thought it captured Dune sufficiently. A helluva lot better than the miniseries, that's for sure. I really didn't like the miniseries; it left a bad taste in my mouth at the end.
----
That reminds me of a great Isaac Asimov short story I read. "The Feeling of Power" is its title. Taking place in the not-so-distant future, people have become so estranged from basic mathematical abilities that they have not even dreamed it possible to perform mathematical calculations without their pocket computers. However, once a bored technician teaches himself to multiply numbers with only a pencil and paper, whole new possibilities in warfare are re-opened. Eventually, this technician commits suicide because of the disasterous results the discovery of what he thought was just a harmless hobby had. It's very satirical but illustrates how we are becoming increasingly alienated from the roots of the things we use every day.
You can read it for yourself at http://regehr.org/john/reading_list/power.html.
----
I also heard that the thing got hotter than fuck ... Oh well. They still make the coolest hardware.
;)
----