Arthouse can be something as simple as here in Austin, where we have Alamo Drafthouse...serves food and good beer while being SELECTIVE about the Hollywood films they play. Sure, they had Transformers on a couple screens for a while, but they also keep the lesser grossing good films playing longer than the chain cinemas. They don't play pretentious indy films
So, how is it an "arthouse" cinema? That just sounds like a small independent cinema to me.
Do [imdb.com] you [imdb.com] really [imdb.com] have [imdb.com] to [imdb.com] ask? [imdb.com]
Oh wow, movies in the 200 minute range. How is that outside the "feature film" length window? I'm talking about 20+ hours which is what you get with the long-form TV drama. How many movies have been released at the cinema with that kind of length?
Until you provide examples, I have no way to refute this. But I would love to, so please indulge me.
Are you not even remotely familiar with contemporary cinema or TV?
Please indulge me on this. I highly doubt HBO has come close to the limits of what has been shown on screen.
See above. Where's your 20+ hour feature film in the cinema?
Feature film is too limiting of a medium? For the love of god... that's a baseless statement.
I don't think it's baseless.
There are films that take far less than 90 minutes, and others that take much longer.
And how many cinemas are going to show films that fall outside of the typical lengths? Aside from the length constraint, there's the way that films are funded based on box office receipts, which is a narrow window of time that favors short-term hype over longevity. And that people must be willing to go out and watch these films in a cinema, rather than in their own space on their own time.
It's up to the writer and the director to figure out how to use those minutes wisely.
And they generally aren't doing a very good job of that. That's the whole problem. Feature films aren't really doing much that's exciting or interesting with the time they are allotted. And the limitations on length mean that too many writers for features lazily fall back on formulaic story structures.
However, this is a problem in television (HBO included) as well.
Of course, every medium has its limitations, but so far the HBO model is showing that it has far fewer than the feature film model. They are showing things that would never have been approved as cinematic releases.
You are probably making wrong choices about what movies you watch...
Uhh, no. I see a wide variety of films, and I have friends and colleagues who are film critics and theorists, with an exhaustive knowledge of film, PhD and all. They mostly agree with this.
The truth is that most of the talent is going to places like HBO because the feature film is too limiting a medium.
You must not have an arthouse theater in your town. Go find one. There are lots of good movies being made
There really aren't that many good movies being made, especially not "arthouse" ones. The best filmic work being done today is on HBO with long-form dramatic TV series. They beat the hell out of anything the cinema has to offer today.
The fact that you use the word "arthouse" as a substitute for "good films" is kind of funny. Among cinephiles and film critics, the term has been used derisively for years now. If a film is labeled "arthouse" then you can predict with almost 100% certainty that it's not a good film. It's most likely a film that has been shot pretentiously to appear profound and arty, but doesn't actually have a lot of substance. It's pretty much the flip-side of the shallow effects-driven film, where the "indie" aesthetic and posturing is more important than making a good film.
Yet your post is one sided at best and naive at worst. If your company has 30000 employees who use tools that they quite heavily depend on that only runs on one particular application and you push out and update because "hahah I'm IT and I make the rules" which breaks everything then YOU should not be employed anywhere.
How does deploying Firefox remove the ability to run IE6?
IT is an internal service. If IT just focuses on the enterprise (security, stability etc) at the expense of usability then the IT department should be dissolved and rebuilt
What the hell does IE6 have to do with usability? If you'ev ever used any of these IE6 based web "applications" you would know that they are the least usable products on the market.
Don't forget, users are a nice and quiet bunch of people... when everything is working.
Again, how does installing Firefox stop things from working?
What's wrong is that it costs time and money for the variety of things that go in to supporting and maintaining an additional application.
It costs very little time and money to support Firefox. It probably costs a lot more to continue supporting the outdated IE6.
The bean counters would throw a fit at the idea of spending money on two applications that do effectively the same thing.
Well, the bean counters would be wrong. The costs of security vulnerability and help desk support for IE6 most likely outweigh the costs of Firefox deployment by a wide margin.
IE is always installed with Windows.
I didn't think it was even possible to install IE6 with Vista or Windows 7, at least without some serious work-arounds.
IE6 based web apps are just reaching what they would consider as stable.
Bullshit. Nobody has ever considered those "applications" stable. In any but the most backwards companies, these IE6 web apps are not long for this world. The only companies interested in keeping them around are the companies which are soon to be extinct.
2. Most people don't even know what a browser is, let alone have the ability to choose which is best to use from a security standpoint.
Again, bullshit. Most people do know what a browser is. There are a few people around (like the elderly) who don't understand the concept. But those who don't won't be in a job for much longer.
The truth is that critical applications depend on IE6 to function, and upgrading from IE6 would cause work to stop.
I wasn't aware that you could only have one browser installed on a computer at a time. What's wrong with installing Firefox for 99% of tasks, and also having IE6 available for the obsolete and soon to be extinct tasks that require it?
I have a bit of a mantra when I talk about IE6. Whenever anyone asks me why anyone would run IE6, I give this response: Assume IE 6 earns them 1 million dollars a day. If they stop using IE6. They start losing 1 million dollars a day. Thats the reality of the situation.
That's about the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard. If this is your mantra, then you should not be employed anywhere, for any job.
"Do not be drawn into a tribal argument on behalf of Ubuntu" meant that the people he was talking to considered Ubuntu to be their tribe.
Of course, it was addressed to the ubuntu community.
Unfortunately don't be drawn in also means don't engage, and don't listen and don't learn that you're the wrong one.
How so? A "tribal argument" is not the same thing as "engaging" or "listening." He doesn't say anywhere that they can't engage in discussion with other groups. That's just your extreme interpretation of it.
I contend that these discussions aren't "tribal" and that they are painful but necessary. There are real problems with Ubuntu that we really should discuss with their community. But they've been warned not to engage.
Again, a strange interpretation. Have you considered that perhaps you are reading too much into it?
I'm sure there is plenty of room to discuss problems with Ububtu. But the way you are approaching it doesn't seem very useful, the way you assume conspiracy theories and jump to ad hominems.
IMO the tribes were "Ubuntu" vs. Everything Else, which would make it doubly his own interest.
But that's simply not true, if you actually read his comment. There's even a sub-heading that says: "Do not be drawn into a tribal argument on Ubuntu’s behalf." And one of the explicitly names "tribes" is Microsoft - so I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's Ubuntu vs everything else. In fact, one of his comments is: "One of the key values we hold in the Ubuntu project is that we expect everyone associated with Ubuntu to treat people with respect."
He's arguing the opposite of what you claim. He's saying to respect different opinions and groups, not to fight with them.
Jen: What is it? Moss: This, Jen, is the Internet. Jen: What? Moss: That's right. Jen: This is the Internet? [Moss is nodding his head] Jen: (suspiciously) The whole Internet? Moss: (agreeably) Yep. I asked for a loan of it, so that you could use it in your speech. [Roy enters the room.] Roy: (irritated) Hey! What is Jen doing with the Internet? Jen: Moss said I could use it for my speech. [Roy speaks to Moss in an edgy way.] Roy: Are you insane? What if she drops it? Jen: I won't drop it, I'll look after it. Roy: No. No, no, no, no, Jen. [Takes the box back from Jen.] No, this needs to go straight back to Big Ben. Jen: Big Ben? Moss: Yep. It goes on top of Big Ben. That's where you get the best reception. Jen: I promise I won't let anything happen to it. Roy: No, Jen, I'm sorry. [Jen becomes woeful.] The elders of the Internet would never stand for it.
I am not dismissing different opinions. I am considering, very seriously, whether it is better for users to be running Microsoft or Apple than for Linux distributions to continue to win market share. This is something I've never done before.
I don't see what this has to do with the topic of discussion, or this thread. You made a trollish statement about Mark Shuttleworth, and then explained it by talking about a conspiracy theory about unpopular opinions (even though your opinion is quite popular around here).
What does any of this have to do with running Microsoft, Apple, or even Linux? The topic is hostility in the user/advocate community.
I really don't understand why you are adding such non-sequiturs to the discussion. Based on your comments so far, it appears you didn't even read Shuttleworth's comments, but just lashed out at him because you don't like him or something.
I have been offered the online-perception-management services I'm talking about while managing at HP and Sourcelabs.
So, because you have been offered such services, every time you are modded down on slashdot, it must be because of paid PR agents doing it, and Shuttleworth is paying them to do it? Get a grip.
What made his statement hypocritical is that he was asking the Free Software community to all line up and pull in one direction,
But he doesn't say that. In fact, he says quite the opposite. You seem to be a perfect example of the destructive "tribalism" he's talking about - somebody who instantly dismisses different opinions, simply because of the group they are associated with.
It's not really anything for the community's own good - we need our differences.
P.S: If your post wasn't intended to inflame, exactly what was its intention? There's only one predictable outcome of the way you posted, and it's not to inform.
Consider the difference between a troll and an unpopular opinion.
Yes there is. Yours falls into the former category. Let's break it down. You claim that your post was modded down because either:
Legions of Ubuntu Sympathizers are out to get you.
PR companies are paying people to down-mod slashdot posts.
if you weren't intending to troll, the only other option is that you are delusional. Do you really think that companies are going to waste money paying people to down-mod slashdot posts? That makes no economic sense at all.
Do you really think that there are that many "Ubuntu Sympathizers" to outweigh the other slashdot moderators, and they all happened to have mod points available?
Further, your accusations against Shuttleworth's character are not substantiated. Bottom line: you make outlandish claims about someone, and then claim a conspiracy against you. You might not be trolling but if not, it was very poor posting.
Slashdot Mirror
Arthouse can be something as simple as here in Austin, where we have Alamo Drafthouse...serves food and good beer while being SELECTIVE about the Hollywood films they play. Sure, they had Transformers on a couple screens for a while, but they also keep the lesser grossing good films playing longer than the chain cinemas. They don't play pretentious indy films
So, how is it an "arthouse" cinema? That just sounds like a small independent cinema to me.
Crappy movies like this? Saw it as my local "arthouse" cinema when it came out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall_(film) [wikipedia.org]
That's not an "arthouse" film by any means.
Do [imdb.com] you [imdb.com] really [imdb.com] have [imdb.com] to [imdb.com] ask? [imdb.com]
Oh wow, movies in the 200 minute range. How is that outside the "feature film" length window? I'm talking about 20+ hours which is what you get with the long-form TV drama. How many movies have been released at the cinema with that kind of length?
Until you provide examples, I have no way to refute this. But I would love to, so please indulge me.
Are you not even remotely familiar with contemporary cinema or TV?
Please indulge me on this. I highly doubt HBO has come close to the limits of what has been shown on screen.
See above. Where's your 20+ hour feature film in the cinema?
Feature film is too limiting of a medium? For the love of god... that's a baseless statement.
I don't think it's baseless.
There are films that take far less than 90 minutes, and others that take much longer.
And how many cinemas are going to show films that fall outside of the typical lengths? Aside from the length constraint, there's the way that films are funded based on box office receipts, which is a narrow window of time that favors short-term hype over longevity. And that people must be willing to go out and watch these films in a cinema, rather than in their own space on their own time.
It's up to the writer and the director to figure out how to use those minutes wisely.
And they generally aren't doing a very good job of that. That's the whole problem. Feature films aren't really doing much that's exciting or interesting with the time they are allotted. And the limitations on length mean that too many writers for features lazily fall back on formulaic story structures.
However, this is a problem in television (HBO included) as well.
Of course, every medium has its limitations, but so far the HBO model is showing that it has far fewer than the feature film model. They are showing things that would never have been approved as cinematic releases.
You are probably making wrong choices about what movies you watch...
Uhh, no. I see a wide variety of films, and I have friends and colleagues who are film critics and theorists, with an exhaustive knowledge of film, PhD and all. They mostly agree with this.
The truth is that most of the talent is going to places like HBO because the feature film is too limiting a medium.
Where would Schindler's list have been without the pink jacket?
A better film?
3D or not, I bet Mars Needs MILFs would do a lot better.
Coming this Fall on NBC; MILF Island... In Spaaaace!
none of the present processes support photography on film
Why is that a bad thing? There's no real reason to shoot on film anymore, it just adds cost.
You must not have an arthouse theater in your town. Go find one. There are lots of good movies being made
There really aren't that many good movies being made, especially not "arthouse" ones. The best filmic work being done today is on HBO with long-form dramatic TV series. They beat the hell out of anything the cinema has to offer today.
The fact that you use the word "arthouse" as a substitute for "good films" is kind of funny. Among cinephiles and film critics, the term has been used derisively for years now. If a film is labeled "arthouse" then you can predict with almost 100% certainty that it's not a good film. It's most likely a film that has been shot pretentiously to appear profound and arty, but doesn't actually have a lot of substance. It's pretty much the flip-side of the shallow effects-driven film, where the "indie" aesthetic and posturing is more important than making a good film.
"Blockbusters" will always be the equivalent of fast food. Made as cheap as possible
Say what? Blockbusters usually have the highest budgets of all films.
Yet your post is one sided at best and naive at worst. If your company has 30000 employees who use tools that they quite heavily depend on that only runs on one particular application and you push out and update because "hahah I'm IT and I make the rules" which breaks everything then YOU should not be employed anywhere.
How does deploying Firefox remove the ability to run IE6?
IT is an internal service. If IT just focuses on the enterprise (security, stability etc) at the expense of usability then the IT department should be dissolved and rebuilt
What the hell does IE6 have to do with usability? If you'ev ever used any of these IE6 based web "applications" you would know that they are the least usable products on the market.
Don't forget, users are a nice and quiet bunch of people ... when everything is working.
Again, how does installing Firefox stop things from working?
What's wrong is that it costs time and money for the variety of things that go in to supporting and maintaining an additional application.
It costs very little time and money to support Firefox. It probably costs a lot more to continue supporting the outdated IE6.
The bean counters would throw a fit at the idea of spending money on two applications that do effectively the same thing.
Well, the bean counters would be wrong. The costs of security vulnerability and help desk support for IE6 most likely outweigh the costs of Firefox deployment by a wide margin.
IE is always installed with Windows.
I didn't think it was even possible to install IE6 with Vista or Windows 7, at least without some serious work-arounds.
IE6 based web apps are just reaching what they would consider as stable.
Bullshit. Nobody has ever considered those "applications" stable. In any but the most backwards companies, these IE6 web apps are not long for this world. The only companies interested in keeping them around are the companies which are soon to be extinct.
2. Most people don't even know what a browser is, let alone have the ability to choose which is best to use from a security standpoint.
Again, bullshit. Most people do know what a browser is. There are a few people around (like the elderly) who don't understand the concept. But those who don't won't be in a job for much longer.
The truth is that critical applications depend on IE6 to function, and upgrading from IE6 would cause work to stop.
I wasn't aware that you could only have one browser installed on a computer at a time. What's wrong with installing Firefox for 99% of tasks, and also having IE6 available for the obsolete and soon to be extinct tasks that require it?
I have a bit of a mantra when I talk about IE6. Whenever anyone asks me why anyone would run IE6, I give this response:
Assume IE 6 earns them 1 million dollars a day. If they stop using IE6. They start losing 1 million dollars a day. Thats the reality of the situation.
That's about the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard. If this is your mantra, then you should not be employed anywhere, for any job.
"Do not be drawn into a tribal argument on behalf of Ubuntu" meant that the people he was talking to considered Ubuntu to be their tribe.
Of course, it was addressed to the ubuntu community.
Unfortunately don't be drawn in also means don't engage, and don't listen and don't learn that you're the wrong one.
How so? A "tribal argument" is not the same thing as "engaging" or "listening." He doesn't say anywhere that they can't engage in discussion with other groups. That's just your extreme interpretation of it.
I contend that these discussions aren't "tribal" and that they are painful but necessary. There are real problems with Ubuntu that we really should discuss with their community. But they've been warned not to engage.
Again, a strange interpretation. Have you considered that perhaps you are reading too much into it?
I'm sure there is plenty of room to discuss problems with Ububtu. But the way you are approaching it doesn't seem very useful, the way you assume conspiracy theories and jump to ad hominems.
IMO the tribes were "Ubuntu" vs. Everything Else, which would make it doubly his own interest.
But that's simply not true, if you actually read his comment. There's even a sub-heading that says: "Do not be drawn into a tribal argument on Ubuntu’s behalf." And one of the explicitly names "tribes" is Microsoft - so I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's Ubuntu vs everything else. In fact, one of his comments is: "One of the key values we hold in the Ubuntu project is that we expect everyone associated with Ubuntu to treat people with respect."
He's arguing the opposite of what you claim. He's saying to respect different opinions and groups, not to fight with them.
Jen: What is it?
Moss: This, Jen, is the Internet.
Jen: What?
Moss: That's right.
Jen: This is the Internet?
[Moss is nodding his head]
Jen: (suspiciously) The whole Internet?
Moss: (agreeably) Yep. I asked for a loan of it, so that you could use it in your speech.
[Roy enters the room.]
Roy: (irritated) Hey! What is Jen doing with the Internet?
Jen: Moss said I could use it for my speech.
[Roy speaks to Moss in an edgy way.]
Roy: Are you insane? What if she drops it?
Jen: I won't drop it, I'll look after it.
Roy: No. No, no, no, no, Jen. [Takes the box back from Jen.] No, this needs to go straight back to Big Ben.
Jen: Big Ben?
Moss: Yep. It goes on top of Big Ben. That's where you get the best reception.
Jen: I promise I won't let anything happen to it.
Roy: No, Jen, I'm sorry. [Jen becomes woeful.] The elders of the Internet would never stand for it.
I am not dismissing different opinions. I am considering, very seriously, whether it is better for users to be running Microsoft or Apple than for Linux distributions to continue to win market share. This is something I've never done before.
I don't see what this has to do with the topic of discussion, or this thread. You made a trollish statement about Mark Shuttleworth, and then explained it by talking about a conspiracy theory about unpopular opinions (even though your opinion is quite popular around here).
What does any of this have to do with running Microsoft, Apple, or even Linux? The topic is hostility in the user/advocate community.
I really don't understand why you are adding such non-sequiturs to the discussion. Based on your comments so far, it appears you didn't even read Shuttleworth's comments, but just lashed out at him because you don't like him or something.
I have been offered the online-perception-management services I'm talking about while managing at HP and Sourcelabs.
So, because you have been offered such services, every time you are modded down on slashdot, it must be because of paid PR agents doing it, and Shuttleworth is paying them to do it? Get a grip.
What made his statement hypocritical is that he was asking the Free Software community to all line up and pull in one direction,
But he doesn't say that. In fact, he says quite the opposite. You seem to be a perfect example of the destructive "tribalism" he's talking about - somebody who instantly dismisses different opinions, simply because of the group they are associated with.
It's not really anything for the community's own good - we need our differences.
Yes, but we don't need trolls and haters.
Do you really want to be reminding them how easy it would be to replace you with a cron job? :-)
There's much more to it than that. I'm a cron artist.
P.S: If your post wasn't intended to inflame, exactly what was its intention? There's only one predictable outcome of the way you posted, and it's not to inform.
Consider the difference between a troll and an unpopular opinion.
Yes there is. Yours falls into the former category. Let's break it down. You claim that your post was modded down because either:
if you weren't intending to troll, the only other option is that you are delusional. Do you really think that companies are going to waste money paying people to down-mod slashdot posts? That makes no economic sense at all.
Do you really think that there are that many "Ubuntu Sympathizers" to outweigh the other slashdot moderators, and they all happened to have mod points available?
Further, your accusations against Shuttleworth's character are not substantiated. Bottom line: you make outlandish claims about someone, and then claim a conspiracy against you. You might not be trolling but if not, it was very poor posting.
is it just me or does she sound waaaay naive
No, it's just you. To everybody else she sounds extremely intelligent and not at all gullible or made-up.
I saw a lot more devotion and mild animosity between Gnome and KDE users than between Ubuntu and Fedora users.
That's because Gnome and KDE users suck.