I still find the space scenes some of the best every filmed. Like the original Star Wars films, there's just something about models as opposed to CGI which gives the visual heft and weight. There's something tangible and real moving through an actual three dimensional space. And because Kubrick and Clarke were obsessed with realism for those shots, there's no sound save whatever the astronauts can hear, and indeed Kubrick was willing to allow for stretches of silence. In fact, considering most of the dialogue is pretty much incidental to the story, much of the film might as well be considered a silent film. And the brilliance of that is that when we do get some heavy meaningful dialogue, it's when Bowman is killing HAL. That's what I love about the movie Kubrick, he saves any emotion-bearing dialogue for a goddamned AI. The humans barely show emotion at all through the film, save for Bowman when he's order HAL to open the pod bay doors, or when he's falling through the Star Gate. HAL 9000 is the most human character in the whole film.
I can't imagine, save perhaps for the very first generation of film goers, any cinema audience who would have, on its first screening, really understood what the hell they were seeing. Certainly film audiences these days, used to be bashed over the head with CGI, noise, and average shot lengths measured in seconds, with endless streams of dialogue whose only function is to push the plot line forward for audiences who might as well just shut down their cerebral cortexes for 90-120 minutes.
Actually, the use of pieces like Thus Spake Zarathustra came about somewhat by accident. There was an actual conventional film score written for 2001, but Kubrick used the classical music just sort of as filler while he was editing the film, and decided that those pieces worked so much better. As Roger Ebert once noted, unlike the use of classical music in some films, 2001 managed to enhance those magnificent works.
The problem is that you were looking for a typical movie storyline, and instead got a meditation on humanity's place in the Universe. It's like complaining that Beethoven didn't put a guitar solo in the Fifth Symphony.
I don't think he necessarily has to have an actual overt economic policy to be an old school mercantilist. But clearly his views on trade, whatever their source, are deeply rooted in very 19th century protectionist views, and the flip side to that was the general tendency of Gilded Age Administrations (and Congresses as well) to protect entrenched interests. I can only imagine traditional brick and mortar retailers feel much the same as Donald Trump does about Amazon, even if his criticism has more to do with his perception that Bezos must be driving the WP's reporting. I think Trump is just instinctively a Gilded Age-style president.
Exactly! The same would be true of any courier service. If you do a LOT of shipping, you will get discount rates. Buying any good or service in bulk will almost inevitably lead to discounts on pricing, and if it doesn't, then you should go elsewhere for your good or service.
This whole attack on Amazon, on top of the Trump Administration's attacks on free trade and the threat of tariffs, makes me think Americans voted in a 19th century president. The whole idea that somehow because a business is disruptive to pre-existing business models as somehow representing a bad development is something I would have expected from any pre-Theodore Roosevelt president.
My view is that Amazon's disruption of retail is not only inevitable (if Amazon hadn't done it, someone else would have, and Amazon is hardly the only one causing the disruption, eBay is up there too), but a good thing. The retail industry has basically remained static for years, and even the "revolutionary" giants like Walmart and Target (with their highly sophisticated JIT inventory systems) had been resting on their laurels. Consumers, to a large extent, were captive to whatever the retailers wanted to sell them. Along comes new retail markets like Amazon and eBay, where consumers now have a much higher level of control, where the feedback between buyer and seller is far more direct, and all of sudden even the traditional giants are seeing sales targets slipping.
So really, Trump isn't a Capitalist at all, maybe more of an old school Mercantilist.
I do, quite often, particularly when it doesn't work properly. Believe me, there are few things as irritating and capable of bringing out the foul language than dropped or frozen connections and the other insanity that goes along with trying to make Skype work.
By accepting the likelihood of regulation, Zuckerberg has at least some opportunity to shape it. Better to capitulate and retain some leverage than to fight it and have regulations imposed.
Basically, the defense is "Trump and his campaign team were a pack of fucking idiots."
I guess complete incompetence and a total lack of judgment is better than being outright corrupt. Sure glad we've cleared that up. Here, Mr. Trump, the dumbest candidate in history, here's a nuclear power to run for four years. Try not to electrocute yourself, or irradiate the planet! Don't worry, a Republican Congress terrified of the mouth breathing base has your back, at least until the mouth breathers figure they elected a barely functioning senile half wit who eats cheese burgers in bed and can't even read briefings.
Of course there are solutions. Stop puking CO2 into the atmosphere. But that's where science and technology hit politics and economics, and so long as it is more convenient for politicians to either kick the can down the road or outright deny there is even a problem, those emissions will continue, perhaps being reduced somewhat, but not enough. But yes, there's a bloody solution to the problem, but it would require honesty and accountability.
I'd just like to add, Kuhn has been heavily misrepresented, and even he admitted that his view of science was a bit distorted from how science actually happens. Most science really doesn't happen as paradigm shifts, but simply as the slow march of advancement as more knowledge is gained and better techniques developed. There really aren't that many gotcha moments in science. It's a much more mundane set of disciplines than that.
I think there's an argument to be made that it is ossifying. CPU and other architecture capabilities have risen to such a level in the last decade that it has disrupted the upgrade cycle. We're still running workstations we bought in 2009, and they even run Win10 (though not the latest creators update, but who cares). They do fine for browsing, document editing and the like, and now we simply replace them as they die, which doesn't actually happen all that often.
Now maybe my company is pushing the envelope a bit, but the refurb market, both for workstations and servers, is huge these days, because an off-lease three or four year old PC, server or laptop can be had for quite a bit less, and is going to do most tasks just as well as one I could go out and buy today. Yes, there are specialty and niche applications like gaming or CAD where you're going to want the latest and greatest, but for most people, if you browse and watch Netflix, you've pretty much covered the basis.
Where the frequent upgrades have been steady is in smartphones. That's where people seem to be giving their kids or Great Aunt Minny their three year old iPhone because the new shiny one is out. In part it's because portable devices are more likely to be damaged or destroyed, and in part because smartphone manufacturers have been as successful at using OS updates to push frequent upgrades as Microsoft was back in the day. And the fact is, in pure numbers, smartphones and feature phones are just much vaster markets than for PCs, and a great deal of the traditional casual computing that would have gone on on a PC now goes on on a phone.
No, that isn't the scientific process. That sort of describes peer review, but science is not a debate society. Debate.at be part of it, but it isn't by ant measure the entirety of the methodology. What you're describing is modern conservatism's strawman of science.
You do understand that the laws of physics don't give a flying shit about your particular political ideology, right? You do understand that whether the Trump Administration accepts or ignores science, the physical laws of nature will continue to do what they do. The best any government can do is create policies based upon the best understanding of how the universe functions, and it does not matter even the tiniest bit what that government, the experts it employs, or yes, even the fucking voters think of it. The universe does not care. It doesn't care about socialism, capitalism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, or any other fucking -ism. It doesn't care about Federalism, Localism, or any idea great or small.
If something is toxic, it's fucking toxic. If something causes the waters to rise, it causes the waters to rise. If it causes surface temperatures to increase, it causes surface temperatures to increase. Everything you care about is fucking irrelevant at the end of the day. What counts is only what the physical laws of the universe will inevitably cause. If a stream gets poisoned, cutting back on the number of scientists isn't going to make the poisons go away.
Somewhere in your fucking head there must be some neurons that fundamentally can cope with the notion that actually listening to what an expert panel says, as imperfect as that may be, is better than just doing whatever the fuck is profitable at the moment. If not, then why bother having government at all? I dump shit in your water supply, mercury in your food chain, and it won't matter, because somehow magically your political ideology apparently can morph the very laws of nature.
Fuck me, there some intensely stupid people out there, and a lot of them seem to post here.
It would be trivial for the US to win a naval war against China. Invading China, no, but sinking her pretty insignificant naval assets and probably downing a boatload of aircraft, absolutely. Not that I think it's a good idea, but I can't imagine even if there is an actual war in the South China Sea that anyone would go nuclear.
If Favreau is given some independence, this might not be bad. He's actually made some pretty darned good films over the years in a number of different genres. Elf is one of my favorite Christmas films (not to mention one of the few Will Farrell vehicles I actually enjoy), and Zathura was a pretty worthy semi-sequel to Jumanji. My problems with Iron Man are more to do with the fact that I never particularly liked the character, but it was a well made film.
Slashdot Mirror
I still find the space scenes some of the best every filmed. Like the original Star Wars films, there's just something about models as opposed to CGI which gives the visual heft and weight. There's something tangible and real moving through an actual three dimensional space. And because Kubrick and Clarke were obsessed with realism for those shots, there's no sound save whatever the astronauts can hear, and indeed Kubrick was willing to allow for stretches of silence. In fact, considering most of the dialogue is pretty much incidental to the story, much of the film might as well be considered a silent film. And the brilliance of that is that when we do get some heavy meaningful dialogue, it's when Bowman is killing HAL. That's what I love about the movie Kubrick, he saves any emotion-bearing dialogue for a goddamned AI. The humans barely show emotion at all through the film, save for Bowman when he's order HAL to open the pod bay doors, or when he's falling through the Star Gate. HAL 9000 is the most human character in the whole film.
I can't imagine, save perhaps for the very first generation of film goers, any cinema audience who would have, on its first screening, really understood what the hell they were seeing. Certainly film audiences these days, used to be bashed over the head with CGI, noise, and average shot lengths measured in seconds, with endless streams of dialogue whose only function is to push the plot line forward for audiences who might as well just shut down their cerebral cortexes for 90-120 minutes.
Actually, the use of pieces like Thus Spake Zarathustra came about somewhat by accident. There was an actual conventional film score written for 2001, but Kubrick used the classical music just sort of as filler while he was editing the film, and decided that those pieces worked so much better. As Roger Ebert once noted, unlike the use of classical music in some films, 2001 managed to enhance those magnificent works.
The problem is that you were looking for a typical movie storyline, and instead got a meditation on humanity's place in the Universe. It's like complaining that Beethoven didn't put a guitar solo in the Fifth Symphony.
Wiping out bad mod
I don't think he necessarily has to have an actual overt economic policy to be an old school mercantilist. But clearly his views on trade, whatever their source, are deeply rooted in very 19th century protectionist views, and the flip side to that was the general tendency of Gilded Age Administrations (and Congresses as well) to protect entrenched interests. I can only imagine traditional brick and mortar retailers feel much the same as Donald Trump does about Amazon, even if his criticism has more to do with his perception that Bezos must be driving the WP's reporting. I think Trump is just instinctively a Gilded Age-style president.
Exactly! The same would be true of any courier service. If you do a LOT of shipping, you will get discount rates. Buying any good or service in bulk will almost inevitably lead to discounts on pricing, and if it doesn't, then you should go elsewhere for your good or service.
This whole attack on Amazon, on top of the Trump Administration's attacks on free trade and the threat of tariffs, makes me think Americans voted in a 19th century president. The whole idea that somehow because a business is disruptive to pre-existing business models as somehow representing a bad development is something I would have expected from any pre-Theodore Roosevelt president.
My view is that Amazon's disruption of retail is not only inevitable (if Amazon hadn't done it, someone else would have, and Amazon is hardly the only one causing the disruption, eBay is up there too), but a good thing. The retail industry has basically remained static for years, and even the "revolutionary" giants like Walmart and Target (with their highly sophisticated JIT inventory systems) had been resting on their laurels. Consumers, to a large extent, were captive to whatever the retailers wanted to sell them. Along comes new retail markets like Amazon and eBay, where consumers now have a much higher level of control, where the feedback between buyer and seller is far more direct, and all of sudden even the traditional giants are seeing sales targets slipping.
So really, Trump isn't a Capitalist at all, maybe more of an old school Mercantilist.
I do, quite often, particularly when it doesn't work properly. Believe me, there are few things as irritating and capable of bringing out the foul language than dropped or frozen connections and the other insanity that goes along with trying to make Skype work.
No, the world won't. The amount of infrastructure built on top of Java is pretty staggering, and much of the world will continue to use Java.
Wow, none of you actually read the underlying report.
Don't ever lose your tinfoil hat, mate. And remember to throw in the phrase "black ops" wherever you can. That makes you look smart!
By accepting the likelihood of regulation, Zuckerberg has at least some opportunity to shape it. Better to capitulate and retain some leverage than to fight it and have regulations imposed.
You can, of course cite this research, right? You wouldn't just be creating strawmen because your dishonest, stupid and lazy.
It is a pretty idiotic headline. It looks like something a twelve year old would write.
Your bedroom sounds like the basement from Silence Of The Lambs. "It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose!"
Basically, the defense is "Trump and his campaign team were a pack of fucking idiots."
I guess complete incompetence and a total lack of judgment is better than being outright corrupt. Sure glad we've cleared that up. Here, Mr. Trump, the dumbest candidate in history, here's a nuclear power to run for four years. Try not to electrocute yourself, or irradiate the planet! Don't worry, a Republican Congress terrified of the mouth breathing base has your back, at least until the mouth breathers figure they elected a barely functioning senile half wit who eats cheese burgers in bed and can't even read briefings.
Of course there are solutions. Stop puking CO2 into the atmosphere. But that's where science and technology hit politics and economics, and so long as it is more convenient for politicians to either kick the can down the road or outright deny there is even a problem, those emissions will continue, perhaps being reduced somewhat, but not enough. But yes, there's a bloody solution to the problem, but it would require honesty and accountability.
The universe doesn't care about the US Constitution either.
I'd just like to add, Kuhn has been heavily misrepresented, and even he admitted that his view of science was a bit distorted from how science actually happens. Most science really doesn't happen as paradigm shifts, but simply as the slow march of advancement as more knowledge is gained and better techniques developed. There really aren't that many gotcha moments in science. It's a much more mundane set of disciplines than that.
I think there's an argument to be made that it is ossifying. CPU and other architecture capabilities have risen to such a level in the last decade that it has disrupted the upgrade cycle. We're still running workstations we bought in 2009, and they even run Win10 (though not the latest creators update, but who cares). They do fine for browsing, document editing and the like, and now we simply replace them as they die, which doesn't actually happen all that often.
Now maybe my company is pushing the envelope a bit, but the refurb market, both for workstations and servers, is huge these days, because an off-lease three or four year old PC, server or laptop can be had for quite a bit less, and is going to do most tasks just as well as one I could go out and buy today. Yes, there are specialty and niche applications like gaming or CAD where you're going to want the latest and greatest, but for most people, if you browse and watch Netflix, you've pretty much covered the basis.
Where the frequent upgrades have been steady is in smartphones. That's where people seem to be giving their kids or Great Aunt Minny their three year old iPhone because the new shiny one is out. In part it's because portable devices are more likely to be damaged or destroyed, and in part because smartphone manufacturers have been as successful at using OS updates to push frequent upgrades as Microsoft was back in the day. And the fact is, in pure numbers, smartphones and feature phones are just much vaster markets than for PCs, and a great deal of the traditional casual computing that would have gone on on a PC now goes on on a phone.
I suspect I have more knowledge of science in my left testicle that you do in your entire body.
No, that isn't the scientific process. That sort of describes peer review, but science is not a debate society. Debate .at be part of it, but it isn't by ant measure the entirety of the methodology. What you're describing is modern conservatism's strawman of science.
You do understand that the laws of physics don't give a flying shit about your particular political ideology, right? You do understand that whether the Trump Administration accepts or ignores science, the physical laws of nature will continue to do what they do. The best any government can do is create policies based upon the best understanding of how the universe functions, and it does not matter even the tiniest bit what that government, the experts it employs, or yes, even the fucking voters think of it. The universe does not care. It doesn't care about socialism, capitalism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, or any other fucking -ism. It doesn't care about Federalism, Localism, or any idea great or small.
If something is toxic, it's fucking toxic. If something causes the waters to rise, it causes the waters to rise. If it causes surface temperatures to increase, it causes surface temperatures to increase. Everything you care about is fucking irrelevant at the end of the day. What counts is only what the physical laws of the universe will inevitably cause. If a stream gets poisoned, cutting back on the number of scientists isn't going to make the poisons go away.
Somewhere in your fucking head there must be some neurons that fundamentally can cope with the notion that actually listening to what an expert panel says, as imperfect as that may be, is better than just doing whatever the fuck is profitable at the moment. If not, then why bother having government at all? I dump shit in your water supply, mercury in your food chain, and it won't matter, because somehow magically your political ideology apparently can morph the very laws of nature.
Fuck me, there some intensely stupid people out there, and a lot of them seem to post here.
It would be trivial for the US to win a naval war against China. Invading China, no, but sinking her pretty insignificant naval assets and probably downing a boatload of aircraft, absolutely. Not that I think it's a good idea, but I can't imagine even if there is an actual war in the South China Sea that anyone would go nuclear.
If Favreau is given some independence, this might not be bad. He's actually made some pretty darned good films over the years in a number of different genres. Elf is one of my favorite Christmas films (not to mention one of the few Will Farrell vehicles I actually enjoy), and Zathura was a pretty worthy semi-sequel to Jumanji. My problems with Iron Man are more to do with the fact that I never particularly liked the character, but it was a well made film.