Indeed. Movies already have a lot of depth to them... On top of which nobody has really figured out how to work with the medium yet, and until that happens...
Your first statement is right on: it is now being recognized that a 2D film is more realistic than a 3D one, which adds an artificial theatrical effect that pulls you right out of the storytelling. This is why so many directors hate it.
Your second statement contradicts your first one. Whether you know how to work with it does not change a thing: this is a gimmick and we should not expect it to get better, we should shed it. Otherwise, our cinema is going to get more circus like than it is already.
The emotional, rhetoric-laden argument style that humanities teaches doesn't hold water in the legal profession, because judges are usually very sharp and aren't going to fall for that shit.
So yes, mathematics education is critically important because it teaches you how to solve problems and answer questions with reason, not feelings.
How ironic. Your argument IS based on an emotional appeal and a gross generalization, where you come to a self-serving conclusion by way of a character attack on a crafted opposing view. This is called a straw-man argument and you would have learned that (among other things) had you studied humanities, literature or some liberal arts. A bit of history wouldn't hurt either...
Eldavojohn, I agree with you: the videos are not that terrible.
I would add that the first one is about the first humanoid robot in space, to be launched soon. If this proves popular, this may help to direct funds to more scientifically oriented missions, instead of this obsession with sending people in space.
This is a touchy topic of course; that might explain the rather slanted tone of the story. Oh, and I checked McCall's work. A bit too corny for me, except the poster he did for 2001 Space Odyssee.
So, the University of Phoenix, a for profit university, is the model he's using to determine that in the future, professors and researchers will not be doing so for profit. Something seems really, really wrong here.
No no no! It still can make some kind of sense. Our governments will divest from education, which should really help with the military budgets. Academics are a nuisance, sure, but will be much less so when we let corporations manage to profit from their free labors and make them dispensable.
I did try to write this within sarcasm tags, but they are not rendered at all...sigh...
This would get rid of the entitlement culture this country is increasingly showing
I agree. Too many rich warhawks believe wars should be fought by someone else's son.
Right on.
I seem to observe these days that the civil liberties we fought for in the 60s and won are slowly being eroded. The only thing missing was the type of opinion voiced by the grandparent:
...the only thing better than a draft would be compulsory term service in either a military or civil capacity. This would get rid of the entitlement culture this country is increasingly showing and would force people to actually learn a skill and be productive
Actually, no. Education does that. A civil society does that.
The other aspect to the assumptions contained in "It's nice to think that we could get there is we mess up here" is that "we" would be a handful of us, the rest would have to live/die in the mess.
Somewhere along the way the debate seems to have got hijacked by those you describe, aka "people wanting free stuff", and somehow bandwidth shaping got lumped in too (sometimes).... The original principles are sound but what the debate morphed into no longer bears much resemblence to them.
The debate has not been 'hijacked by people wanting free stuff', the telcos are deliberately muddying the waters in order to prevent the public from clearly understanding what is at stake, and preventing the government from playing his role regulating the industry.
The people you cite as hijackers are not the one controlling the PR firms and the lobby money. Follow the money.
I am really getting tired of this half-assed theory of this being a 'belief' and the implications thereoff, and subsequent appeal to reasonableness. You just hear these assertions, never substantiated by anything but inuendo and anecdotes. In any movement of this scale, you will have debates about its orientation, tactics, strategy, etc. And you will have people who will think strongly about this. So what?...
I don't even like Stallman (I think he's an asshole, frankly), but that's clearly one thing he got very right.... open source software - GCC included - would likely not exist today without the GPL.
If you start such a movement and doing so frustrate self-interested grabbers of all kinds, you are naturally going to be the target of abuse and personal attacks on such a scale that you may have, or you may need to already have, a thick skin to merely survive.
But your post does underline the significance of the accomplishment, so I concur.
Ahahaha. Sometimes libertarians crack me up. Corporations are too powerful and our government gets controlled by them. To counteract this we should allow companies to become more powerful, less restricted and take powers away from the government, reel it in.
To which you answer:
... There are two aspects to solving this issue. One is to reduce the power of governments, which simultaneously limits the power available for corporations to influence....
And you can write that without laughing? Just as the parent wrote:
Despite comments to the effect that this is not news, these comments are quite interesting. Google has a capitalization comparable to the lobbyists of the kind of ATT and others, but here as well, they play differently, and more transparently. Mr. Schmidt's comments here reflect this difference.
This is why this company still has the sympathy of slashdotters. Google's effort to advance Net neutrality and other issues pertaining to civil liberties and the Internet are to be appreciated, not derided cynically like I am reading here.
OK, I doubt that many slashdotters, who are typically Libertarian-leaning, will be able to hear what I'm saying.
They hear you! At the time I write this, there are 16 comments above this one rated +5. Of those 16, 16 are in favor of government intervention to protect Net neutrality.
Please, stop the mantra that Slashdotters are Libertarian-leaning. They aren't.
You raise a good point and make a good case for it.
However, at this point, doesn't the question become one of self-respect? Why put more effort, however easy it might be to resolve, into this? Does Discovery deserves it? Who should make an effort here? If I were into this guy's shoes, they could beg me to continue and I would still say no.
Personally, I would do exactly what they ask, and watch with interest Discovery Channel's reputation being trashed publicly like is being done here. This is what they deserve.
I totally disagree. (...) while in general Slashdot has some pretty common points-of-view (FOSS supporters, generally libertarian leaning, etc.),
... And I disagree with your disagreement... and more: libertarian leaning? I am far from convinced of that. The Slashdot crowd is generally quite sensitive to and very critical of corporate abuse, and to that extent, favors government intervention when needed, for example on Net-neutrality issues. That does not square at all with libertarian views, who constantly pop out on such issues to dismiss concerns (oh, just like yours by the way...)
Perhaps mod abuse is less a problem on Slashdot than on Digg. This does not mean that it does not exist, nor that it is not a concern.
The parent had a point, and your disagreement in my eyes confirms the parent's point relevance.
On an actual set, the sheer size, weight, and complexity of these 3D camera rigs means that a lot of things directors enjoy being able to do, especially shooting handheld and moving quickly
Well there's a tangible benefit to 3D right there! No more supertrendyshakycam!
No benefit at all. The point of the parent is that supertrendyshakycam (has been around for more than a half century, by the way) and other techniques that are hindered by the use of these 3D rigs add more realism to the film than 3D. He argues, and I think this as the decisive argument against 3D, that not only this does not add to realism, it takes away from it. It is a mere theatrical gimmick that is not life like, it pulls you out of the storytelling and remind you that you are in a theater. As such, it goes against cinematographic evolution as we have known it, which favors a realistic experience which supports storytelling. It is therefore not surprising that the actual people involved in the storytelling rebel against this trend.
I also believe that the studios themselves support this out of their best judgment out of fear of the 'democratization' of cinema (cheaper cameras) and as an effective barrier to entry.
I don't have mod points today, unfortunately. After reading every comment on this story, I would certainly mod the parent up! The last paragraph in particular succinctly sums it all.
I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.
But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:
Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.
Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple... even a different carrier..
Interesting. You accuse the parent of speculating on the likely use of this patent, but you end up building up a scenario that is very close to this very speculation... and you say you would want it.
I would never tolerate advertising messing with my OS, under any pretext and notwithstanding any promise. If this is allowed to go on, there will be no end to it, and it will not cost you a cent less in the end.
Having your address in a client database in one thing, collecting your whereabouts is an entirely different one. Thus the claim by Apple and their studied reply to congressman Markey that they dutifully anonymise such information. The grandparent points out that this claim is entirely invalid, and you have done nothing to disprove him.
The grandparent interestingly posits this as an intelligence test for Congress and the American public. Despite your brashness, you seem to have failed it.
The problem for many people is the incongruity between how they were raised and reality. People are generally raised to believe that people are good, that there are norms of behavior, there is justice in the world, authority figures can be trusted, things happen for reason and are overseen by an omnipotent deity. As we grow up, we learn that these are simply convenient lies that define our society.
When presented with conflicting visual evidence, we can be shocked and damaged - our world view is broken. Some go into denial (classifying the content as depravity), and some go into depression (recognizing that society is simply a veneer). Education and experience over time tends to break these falsehoods more gently, incrementally. The Internet is not so gentle.
Rubbish.
If society is only a veneer, how do you explain that it works at all? I mean, why can you go out in the street and feel secure? We evolved those social behaviors over a very long time. We react with strong emotions to those things because we have slowly built a cooperative culture through those choices, however arbitrary they may seem, and we have integrated them into our limbic system. Our distant ancestors could have chosen otherwise: they could have decided that it would be more reproductively advantageous to assume a bullying, no mercy attitude. Well, some might have done so, but they have failed to reproduce, or at least to dominate. Those who advocate insensitive attitudes through an ideology (I think of fascism here) have not made it through history either.
I find it funny that the most naked cynicism is always accompanied by aggressive injunctions to "get real". I would answer to that: get a clue.
Being able to cope comfortably is only a pathology to those who fetishize sweet, delectable sensitivity. One can understand and see things which are unusual and outside social taboos without giving a shit. It's called perspective, as opposed to morbid emotional wallowing.
You yourself assume a superior, balanced attitude, while in fact you don't use argument but personal attack to defeat the opposite perspective. You come out as pretty aggressive in fact. And your 'big guy' pretension that you would not be affected by this shit is not backed by any actual knowledge or argument: you are just making it up... "all sissies..." I see you thinking and boasting.
Do a bit of anthropology. We have evolved into a highly cooperative species through a very, very long process and our emotions, feelings of compassion, sense of ethics, etc. do define our individual characters and our common human culture. The grandparent does have a valid point when he suggest that someone unaffected could qualify as a sociopath. Your rationalizations don't even begin to convince me to the contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Movies already have a lot of depth to them... On top of which nobody has really figured out how to work with the medium yet, and until that happens...
Your first statement is right on: it is now being recognized that a 2D film is more realistic than a 3D one, which adds an artificial theatrical effect that pulls you right out of the storytelling. This is why so many directors hate it.
Your second statement contradicts your first one. Whether you know how to work with it does not change a thing: this is a gimmick and we should not expect it to get better, we should shed it. Otherwise, our cinema is going to get more circus like than it is already.
The emotional, rhetoric-laden argument style that humanities teaches doesn't hold water in the legal profession, because judges are usually very sharp and aren't going to fall for that shit.
So yes, mathematics education is critically important because it teaches you how to solve problems and answer questions with reason, not feelings.
How ironic. Your argument IS based on an emotional appeal and a gross generalization, where you come to a self-serving conclusion by way of a character attack on a crafted opposing view. This is called a straw-man argument and you would have learned that (among other things) had you studied humanities, literature or some liberal arts. A bit of history wouldn't hurt either...
Eldavojohn, I agree with you: the videos are not that terrible.
I would add that the first one is about the first humanoid robot in space, to be launched soon. If this proves popular, this may help to direct funds to more scientifically oriented missions, instead of this obsession with sending people in space.
This is a touchy topic of course; that might explain the rather slanted tone of the story. Oh, and I checked McCall's work. A bit too corny for me, except the poster he did for 2001 Space Odyssee.
So, the University of Phoenix, a for profit university, is the model he's using to determine that in the future, professors and researchers will not be doing so for profit. Something seems really, really wrong here.
No no no! It still can make some kind of sense. Our governments will divest from education, which should really help with the military budgets. Academics are a nuisance, sure, but will be much less so when we let corporations manage to profit from their free labors and make them dispensable.
I did try to write this within sarcasm tags, but they are not rendered at all...sigh...
I agree. Too many rich warhawks believe wars should be fought by someone else's son.
Right on.
I seem to observe these days that the civil liberties we fought for in the 60s and won are slowly being eroded. The only thing missing was the type of opinion voiced by the grandparent:
Actually, no. Education does that. A civil society does that.
The other aspect to the assumptions contained in "It's nice to think that we could get there is we mess up here" is that "we" would be a handful of us, the rest would have to live/die in the mess.
Somewhere along the way the debate seems to have got hijacked by those you describe, aka "people wanting free stuff", and somehow bandwidth shaping got lumped in too (sometimes).... The original principles are sound but what the debate morphed into no longer bears much resemblence to them.
The debate has not been 'hijacked by people wanting free stuff', the telcos are deliberately muddying the waters in order to prevent the public from clearly understanding what is at stake, and preventing the government from playing his role regulating the industry.
The people you cite as hijackers are not the one controlling the PR firms and the lobby money. Follow the money.
I am really getting tired of this half-assed theory of this being a 'belief' and the implications thereoff, and subsequent appeal to reasonableness.
You just hear these assertions, never substantiated by anything but inuendo and anecdotes.
In any movement of this scale, you will have debates about its orientation, tactics, strategy, etc.
And you will have people who will think strongly about this. So what?...
Just repeating a lie, aren't you?
Now get rid of Stallman and I will actively support you.
Haha, just like Apple needed to get rid of Steve Jobs in order to grow...
Get used to it, the guy has his character and it is part of the deal.
You need to have a thick skin when you go out and entertain to slay dragons.
He, you're lucky today: modded +5 funny on Slashdot with a joke worthy of an elementary schoolyard brat.
I don't even like Stallman (I think he's an asshole, frankly), but that's clearly one thing he got very right. ... open source software - GCC included - would likely not exist today without the GPL.
If you start such a movement and doing so frustrate self-interested grabbers of all kinds, you are naturally going to be the target of abuse and personal attacks on such a scale that you may have, or you may need to already have, a thick skin to merely survive.
But your post does underline the significance of the accomplishment, so I concur.
I join my voice to the chorus. Thank you!
The parent wrote:
Ahahaha. Sometimes libertarians crack me up. Corporations are too powerful and our government gets controlled by them. To counteract this we should allow companies to become more powerful, less restricted and take powers away from the government, reel it in.
To which you answer:
... There are two aspects to solving this issue. One is to reduce the power of governments, which simultaneously limits the power available for corporations to influence. ...
And you can write that without laughing? Just as the parent wrote:
Almost as good as the teapartiers.
You libertarians do really crack me up too.
Despite comments to the effect that this is not news, these comments are quite interesting. Google has a capitalization comparable to the lobbyists of the kind of ATT and others, but here as well, they play differently, and more transparently. Mr. Schmidt's comments here reflect this difference.
This is why this company still has the sympathy of slashdotters. Google's effort to advance Net neutrality and other issues pertaining to civil liberties and the Internet are to be appreciated, not derided cynically like I am reading here.
OK, I doubt that many slashdotters, who are typically Libertarian-leaning, will be able to hear what I'm saying.
They hear you! At the time I write this, there are 16 comments above this one rated +5. Of those 16, 16 are in favor of government intervention to protect Net neutrality.
Please, stop the mantra that Slashdotters are Libertarian-leaning. They aren't.
You raise a good point and make a good case for it.
However, at this point, doesn't the question become one of self-respect? Why put more effort, however easy it might be to resolve, into this? Does Discovery deserves it? Who should make an effort here? If I were into this guy's shoes, they could beg me to continue and I would still say no.
Personally, I would do exactly what they ask, and watch with interest Discovery Channel's reputation being trashed publicly like is being done here. This is what they deserve.
I totally disagree. (...) while in general Slashdot has some pretty common points-of-view (FOSS supporters, generally libertarian leaning, etc.),
... And I disagree with your disagreement... and more: libertarian leaning? I am far from convinced of that. The Slashdot crowd is generally quite sensitive to and very critical of corporate abuse, and to that extent, favors government intervention when needed, for example on Net-neutrality issues. That does not square at all with libertarian views, who constantly pop out on such issues to dismiss concerns (oh, just like yours by the way...)
Perhaps mod abuse is less a problem on Slashdot than on Digg. This does not mean that it does not exist, nor that it is not a concern.
The parent had a point, and your disagreement in my eyes confirms the parent's point relevance.
On an actual set, the sheer size, weight, and complexity of these 3D camera rigs means that a lot of things directors enjoy being able to do, especially shooting handheld and moving quickly
Well there's a tangible benefit to 3D right there! No more supertrendyshakycam!
No benefit at all. The point of the parent is that supertrendyshakycam (has been around for more than a half century, by the way) and other techniques that are hindered by the use of these 3D rigs add more realism to the film than 3D. He argues, and I think this as the decisive argument against 3D, that not only this does not add to realism, it takes away from it. It is a mere theatrical gimmick that is not life like, it pulls you out of the storytelling and remind you that you are in a theater. As such, it goes against cinematographic evolution as we have known it, which favors a realistic experience which supports storytelling. It is therefore not surprising that the actual people involved in the storytelling rebel against this trend.
I also believe that the studios themselves support this out of their best judgment out of fear of the 'democratization' of cinema (cheaper cameras) and as an effective barrier to entry.
I don't have mod points today, unfortunately. After reading every comment on this story, I would certainly mod the parent up! The last paragraph in particular succinctly sums it all.
It is job one urgency around here. Nobody is sleeping at the switch.
Nobody is sleeping at the switch... We just woke up in a panic... !
I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.
But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:
Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.
Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple ... even a different carrier. .
Interesting. You accuse the parent of speculating on the likely use of this patent, but you end up building up a scenario that is very close to this very speculation... and you say you would want it.
I would never tolerate advertising messing with my OS, under any pretext and notwithstanding any promise. If this is allowed to go on, there will be no end to it, and it will not cost you a cent less in the end.
Thank you, but No.
You have missed the point.
Having your address in a client database in one thing, collecting your whereabouts is an entirely different one. Thus the claim by Apple and their studied reply to congressman Markey that they dutifully anonymise such information. The grandparent points out that this claim is entirely invalid, and you have done nothing to disprove him.
The grandparent interestingly posits this as an intelligence test for Congress and the American public. Despite your brashness, you seem to have failed it.
The problem for many people is the incongruity between how they were raised and reality. People are generally raised to believe that people are good, that there are norms of behavior, there is justice in the world, authority figures can be trusted, things happen for reason and are overseen by an omnipotent deity. As we grow up, we learn that these are simply convenient lies that define our society.
When presented with conflicting visual evidence, we can be shocked and damaged - our world view is broken. Some go into denial (classifying the content as depravity), and some go into depression (recognizing that society is simply a veneer). Education and experience over time tends to break these falsehoods more gently, incrementally. The Internet is not so gentle.
Rubbish.
If society is only a veneer, how do you explain that it works at all? I mean, why can you go out in the street and feel secure? We evolved those social behaviors over a very long time. We react with strong emotions to those things because we have slowly built a cooperative culture through those choices, however arbitrary they may seem, and we have integrated them into our limbic system. Our distant ancestors could have chosen otherwise: they could have decided that it would be more reproductively advantageous to assume a bullying, no mercy attitude. Well, some might have done so, but they have failed to reproduce, or at least to dominate. Those who advocate insensitive attitudes through an ideology (I think of fascism here) have not made it through history either.
I find it funny that the most naked cynicism is always accompanied by aggressive injunctions to "get real". I would answer to that: get a clue.
Being able to cope comfortably is only a pathology to those who fetishize sweet, delectable sensitivity. One can understand and see things which are unusual and outside social taboos without giving a shit. It's called perspective, as opposed to morbid emotional wallowing.
You yourself assume a superior, balanced attitude, while in fact you don't use argument but personal attack to defeat the opposite perspective. You come out as pretty aggressive in fact. And your 'big guy' pretension that you would not be affected by this shit is not backed by any actual knowledge or argument: you are just making it up... "all sissies..." I see you thinking and boasting.
Do a bit of anthropology. We have evolved into a highly cooperative species through a very, very long process and our emotions, feelings of compassion, sense of ethics, etc. do define our individual characters and our common human culture. The grandparent does have a valid point when he suggest that someone unaffected could qualify as a sociopath. Your rationalizations don't even begin to convince me to the contrary.
'Compared to the old sky image, the TeraPixel version is much more refined.
This makes one remind of an old practice of theirs: Embrace, Extend and Extinguish...
Scary!
Is the project set to be completed in 2012, by any chance?