Continue to make good faith efforts to change the policy. However, if you keep getting stonewalled, then let it slide; you may start making enemies if you continue past that point. It won't be your ass on the line if something goes wrong, especially if you can document that you tried to solve the problem.
I said there needs to be limits and rules set, I didn't say thought that I should be the one to set them. In point of fact, I think that perhaps if said creators got together they could reasonably decide on rules amongst themselves.
I don't think anyone needs to worry too much about the lack of truth in movie scenes. Movies are supposed to be entertainment, and thus, most of them are fiction. We're PRESENTED with an untruth and asked to set aside what we may know or think to be true and enjoy it. As such, digitally manipulating movies to be more potent or seem more realistic (like removing breathing from a supposedly dead body) isn't really any different then watching a movie where movie special effects have made Yoda battle.
Having said that, I think the real problem is that the craft of acting will suffer immensely for it. No more will you have directors screaming at actors "GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME!! Take 312! Action!", you'll get instead "That's good enough Tina. Digital will fix it up for us."
Before long, will be getting digital accent manipulation. Digital... well, all the examples I can think of are already beginning to be done like digital teeth whitening, digital smiles, digital crying.
When you can't even believe anymore that the actors on the screen are even PRETENDING to feel emotional about something, movies will lose much of their entertainment value and their emotional appeal. If the actors aren't willing to pretend, why should you? Suspension of disbelief will end. Most movies are crap, but there are gems out there. To protect this artform, there needs to be limits and rules set about what can and can't be digitally manipulated or crafted.
I don't know why anyone is every surprised when stuff goes wrong on missions, or equipment breaks down. Nasa is a governmental agency and as such has a big beaurocratic morass, and often different divisions don't know what the others are doing.
I used to date the daughter of the Vice President of Operations at Nasa. The first time I ever got to talk to him, I was so excited; I asked him about an upcoming mission that was going to be taking off. It might actually have been this one, it was a year or two ago when it left. He actually hadn't heard about the mission; I had to describe it to him.
Sure, at first the lack of another next generation system could allow Microsoft to grab more market share in the beginning, but it is the truth that if sony were to take this track, then when they do launch, many people will be more than willing to shell out the money for a next gen system with an extensive launch title list, rather than one with a short list that slowly grows. Additionally, with the extra time allowed to work on their games, many of the launch titles would probably be of high quality.
Psychology and neroscience are still unsure whether chemical imbalances and faulty electrical signaling are the causes or symptoms of depression. Therefore I'm sure that many people in the medical community consider this a treatment of the symptoms of depression rather than the underlying causes.
This treatment would be akin to getting rid of someone's cough and runny nose and then saying the cold was cured. You haven't cured the cold, you've just stopped the visible symptoms of it.
Maybe it's just me, that's a possibility, but I don't understand people's fascination with these kinds of services. Blogging, bookmark sharing, it all seems to me like a cry for attention from other people. Blogging looks like it could be fun, but I never participated in it because it always seemed as if no one would ever particularly are about my life, and if they did, it would say more about their life than mine. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't participate in this type of service. I'm not trolling, I simply really do not see the appeal. If I wanted to keep a record of my life, I'd be much more likely to keep a private journal.
Well unfortunately the dividing line on free choice isn't always easy. The queston is how much free choice? It's never simple making a decision on where to place the line, and many people always believe the line should be in one direction or another. As an EXTREME analogy, let's say I decided to say thus:
"There are differing opinion on the ethics of jihad. Some of these opinions borrow from religions teachings. We should allow terrorists free access to all services and armaments, since doing so allows people to decide on ethics (whuch may depend on religion) themselve."
OBviously not a legitimate argument due to danger to life, but it DOES apply to bioethics. At what point can one really say "I simply have different ethics than you." and it really becomes. "I shall do as I please with disregard to the freedoms of others." Because, once babies become designed, the rest of us must compete agsinst them, in all aspects of life.
"I talked with a couple of guys who were also waiting there in the lobby, guys working with Pixar on an ancillary project. They sounded just as excited talking about the company as I'm sure I did, and it struck me: for hardcore animation fans, Pixar plays the same role that the Beatles must have for music fans in the '60s. We are living in a golden age, watching true giants in their primes, and each new film they put out is a joy because of the incredibly high genre defining standards that they hold themselves to."
Nothing's worse than hearing a line like this and knowing that it's only a relatively few years down the line before the wrong type of management takes over, and the public ends up with just another Disney that churns out the same type of rehashed stories to make a quick buck, and marry it with hurried animation carried on the backs of the overworked "Cottage" dwellers. Pixar is certainly a fine example of a company with more on their mind than the bottom line, and one that understands that happy workers are productive and creative workers, but it won't last. I'm sure we can all think of many companbies offhand that fell from such a height (I believe HP was featured recently on Slashdot.)
As a bit of an aside, Google may one day fall too. We can all hope that this won't come to pass, as Google symbolizes and displays pretty much every virtue that a techie could want in a company and it would be nice to see the proverbial good guys hold their own, for once. Perhaps their hiring practices will help protect against it. Once again, though, all it will take is a bad, short-sighted management and stock-holders that think only of the coming quarter and not several years down the line. Thinking down the line is how Pixar and Google came to rightfully stand on the pedastals that they now do (and hopefully will for years to come.)
I love Google as much as the next person; I use it almost exclusively to search for pages. However, it seems to me some fanboys won't be happy until we're eating Google brand noodles out of Googlebrand dishware wearing Google brand clothing and then we buy Google brand detergent to get the Googdles stain off of my new Google shirt.
He ended up not serving a sentence at all. He was released from charges by the government which went after the company he worked for instead, and the jury acquitted the company of all charges. Looks like the system worked for once. Too bad no one took advantage of the chance to strike down the DMCA (or at least parts of it) as unconstitutional.
I personally would have gone with something from Back to the Future. He could have said that he told the companies to make like a tree and get out of here.
The real problem is that children don't understand leet speak, and so will often get drawn into encounters with child molesters and have no clue what is going on.
That's not true, every prescription drug is a chemical and they can certainly be patented. Where did you get the idea that chemicals can't be patented? Even different combinations of chemicals can be patented, take for instance sodas. All fairly simple ingredients, but clearly a patentable product.
It's the worst thing we're doing, allowing patents on genetic coding and other areas relating to biology. Imagine if someone discovered a gene that 100% determines whether or not a person gets alzheimers. So the person patents it and subsequently refuses to let anyone else work on drugs that would affect the protein produced by the gene. In the years before the patent expires, a cure could have already been found.
My example is poor because genes that influence alzheimers have been found already, but it's just for sake of argument.
Another example, previously featured on slashdot, is genetically modified seeds. What if seeds from a field of grain blow onto yours and you end up with the genetically modified grains or what have you, and you're sued for "stealing" it. It's an actual possibility, and it's MADNESS.
When people stop going to a blog for information because they don't think the person tells the truth, or is otherwise misinforming them (purposeful or otherwise) then the blog will die. The process is self correcting. There are plenty of blogs out there that no one reads because it's a pack of lies or it provides no information. Blogs that are discovered to be propoganda machines will suffer the same fate.
Slashdot Mirror
While I understand that this is probably good for pageviews and thus revenue, do we really have to encourage these people?
Continue to make good faith efforts to change the policy. However, if you keep getting stonewalled, then let it slide; you may start making enemies if you continue past that point. It won't be your ass on the line if something goes wrong, especially if you can document that you tried to solve the problem.
Yes, I agree; this is blatantly a statement.
What could possibly go wrong?
I said there needs to be limits and rules set, I didn't say thought that I should be the one to set them. In point of fact, I think that perhaps if said creators got together they could reasonably decide on rules amongst themselves.
I don't think anyone needs to worry too much about the lack of truth in movie scenes. Movies are supposed to be entertainment, and thus, most of them are fiction. We're PRESENTED with an untruth and asked to set aside what we may know or think to be true and enjoy it. As such, digitally manipulating movies to be more potent or seem more realistic (like removing breathing from a supposedly dead body) isn't really any different then watching a movie where movie special effects have made Yoda battle.
Having said that, I think the real problem is that the craft of acting will suffer immensely for it. No more will you have directors screaming at actors "GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME!! Take 312! Action!", you'll get instead "That's good enough Tina. Digital will fix it up for us."
Before long, will be getting digital accent manipulation. Digital... well, all the examples I can think of are already beginning to be done like digital teeth whitening, digital smiles, digital crying.
When you can't even believe anymore that the actors on the screen are even PRETENDING to feel emotional about something, movies will lose much of their entertainment value and their emotional appeal. If the actors aren't willing to pretend, why should you? Suspension of disbelief will end. Most movies are crap, but there are gems out there. To protect this artform, there needs to be limits and rules set about what can and can't be digitally manipulated or crafted.
The just wanted to still be able to call a superconducting computer a PC (psychoceramic).
The data on the common cold has been available for a long time. Have you accessed it recently?
A little bit of sanity in this world.
I don't know why anyone is every surprised when stuff goes wrong on missions, or equipment breaks down. Nasa is a governmental agency and as such has a big beaurocratic morass, and often different divisions don't know what the others are doing. I used to date the daughter of the Vice President of Operations at Nasa. The first time I ever got to talk to him, I was so excited; I asked him about an upcoming mission that was going to be taking off. It might actually have been this one, it was a year or two ago when it left. He actually hadn't heard about the mission; I had to describe it to him.
Sure, at first the lack of another next generation system could allow Microsoft to grab more market share in the beginning, but it is the truth that if sony were to take this track, then when they do launch, many people will be more than willing to shell out the money for a next gen system with an extensive launch title list, rather than one with a short list that slowly grows. Additionally, with the extra time allowed to work on their games, many of the launch titles would probably be of high quality.
I guess the success of the Zodiac just wasn't in the stars...
Psychology and neroscience are still unsure whether chemical imbalances and faulty electrical signaling are the causes or symptoms of depression. Therefore I'm sure that many people in the medical community consider this a treatment of the symptoms of depression rather than the underlying causes.
This treatment would be akin to getting rid of someone's cough and runny nose and then saying the cold was cured. You haven't cured the cold, you've just stopped the visible symptoms of it.
Maybe it's just me, that's a possibility, but I don't understand people's fascination with these kinds of services. Blogging, bookmark sharing, it all seems to me like a cry for attention from other people. Blogging looks like it could be fun, but I never participated in it because it always seemed as if no one would ever particularly are about my life, and if they did, it would say more about their life than mine. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't participate in this type of service. I'm not trolling, I simply really do not see the appeal. If I wanted to keep a record of my life, I'd be much more likely to keep a private journal.
Well unfortunately the dividing line on free choice isn't always easy. The queston is how much free choice? It's never simple making a decision on where to place the line, and many people always believe the line should be in one direction or another. As an EXTREME analogy, let's say I decided to say thus:
"There are differing opinion on the ethics of jihad. Some of these opinions borrow from religions teachings. We should allow terrorists free access to all services and armaments, since doing so allows people to decide on ethics (whuch may depend on religion) themselve."
OBviously not a legitimate argument due to danger to life, but it DOES apply to bioethics. At what point can one really say "I simply have different ethics than you." and it really becomes. "I shall do as I please with disregard to the freedoms of others." Because, once babies become designed, the rest of us must compete agsinst them, in all aspects of life.
"I talked with a couple of guys who were also waiting there in the lobby, guys working with Pixar on an ancillary project. They sounded just as excited talking about the company as I'm sure I did, and it struck me: for hardcore animation fans, Pixar plays the same role that the Beatles must have for music fans in the '60s. We are living in a golden age, watching true giants in their primes, and each new film they put out is a joy because of the incredibly high genre defining standards that they hold themselves to."
Nothing's worse than hearing a line like this and knowing that it's only a relatively few years down the line before the wrong type of management takes over, and the public ends up with just another Disney that churns out the same type of rehashed stories to make a quick buck, and marry it with hurried animation carried on the backs of the overworked "Cottage" dwellers. Pixar is certainly a fine example of a company with more on their mind than the bottom line, and one that understands that happy workers are productive and creative workers, but it won't last. I'm sure we can all think of many companbies offhand that fell from such a height (I believe HP was featured recently on Slashdot.)
As a bit of an aside, Google may one day fall too. We can all hope that this won't come to pass, as Google symbolizes and displays pretty much every virtue that a techie could want in a company and it would be nice to see the proverbial good guys hold their own, for once. Perhaps their hiring practices will help protect against it. Once again, though, all it will take is a bad, short-sighted management and stock-holders that think only of the coming quarter and not several years down the line. Thinking down the line is how Pixar and Google came to rightfully stand on the pedastals that they now do (and hopefully will for years to come.)
Who sees the potential for glorious abuse? Just stick it in someone's car, put a hose in, and run like hell.
I love Google as much as the next person; I use it almost exclusively to search for pages. However, it seems to me some fanboys won't be happy until we're eating Google brand noodles out of Googlebrand dishware wearing Google brand clothing and then we buy Google brand detergent to get the Googdles stain off of my new Google shirt.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978497.html
He ended up not serving a sentence at all. He was released from charges by the government which went after the company he worked for instead, and the jury acquitted the company of all charges. Looks like the system worked for once. Too bad no one took advantage of the chance to strike down the DMCA (or at least parts of it) as unconstitutional.
I personally would have gone with something from Back to the Future. He could have said that he told the companies to make like a tree and get out of here.
The real problem is that children don't understand leet speak, and so will often get drawn into encounters with child molesters and have no clue what is going on.
If you had read TFA you would have read that cell performs even better with serial processing than it does with parallel processing.
That's not true, every prescription drug is a chemical and they can certainly be patented. Where did you get the idea that chemicals can't be patented? Even different combinations of chemicals can be patented, take for instance sodas. All fairly simple ingredients, but clearly a patentable product.
It's the worst thing we're doing, allowing patents on genetic coding and other areas relating to biology. Imagine if someone discovered a gene that 100% determines whether or not a person gets alzheimers. So the person patents it and subsequently refuses to let anyone else work on drugs that would affect the protein produced by the gene. In the years before the patent expires, a cure could have already been found.
My example is poor because genes that influence alzheimers have been found already, but it's just for sake of argument.
Another example, previously featured on slashdot, is genetically modified seeds. What if seeds from a field of grain blow onto yours and you end up with the genetically modified grains or what have you, and you're sued for "stealing" it. It's an actual possibility, and it's MADNESS.
When people stop going to a blog for information because they don't think the person tells the truth, or is otherwise misinforming them (purposeful or otherwise) then the blog will die. The process is self correcting. There are plenty of blogs out there that no one reads because it's a pack of lies or it provides no information. Blogs that are discovered to be propoganda machines will suffer the same fate.