the good ones are great, but the mediocre ones are horrid. they never know what they want and expect you to show them, then change their mind and expect it re-done for free (failing to realise that slightly changing the camera move is not a small quick change, but one that requires the entire scene to be re-rendered).
the explosions are usually done in camera btw... and the compositing required to stick the actors in front of it are not at all difficult or expensive - the work experience guy can roto that in less than an hour.
I wish people would stop saying that the VFX are ruining moves. We're a tool used by the director (or, more often, by the studio) if that Director (or again, the studio) fail to utilize us within the story properly, how is it the VFX that are ruining movies?
exactly. VFX only ruin a movie if a fucking moron like Baz Luhrmann reads a magazine and gets excited about the amazing things that can be done... but you could (rightly) say that the movie was ruined before it got anywhere near a post house.
realism is proportional to budget more than it is to technology.
a big budget movie of yesteryear still had very realistic effects because they simply didn't try to do things that were not possible - sure they'd push the envelope, but not to the point of killing suspension of disbelief.
these days, movie makers want crazy big movie effects and they want them in EVERY SHOT. and they are not willing to pay for them.
so even with the most advanced software and most talented artists, stuff is going to look fake unless the client is willing to pay for the time it takes to make it look real.
chill dude. it's not even got a head yet. it's a ball of near identical cells that has the potential to become something greater. or has the potential to miscarry. or grow ectopically and kill it's host. or grow up into the next Hitler (yay! Godwin!).
do you pray for all the unfertilized eggs? or all the sperm that end up wrapped in a tissue and flushed?
* disclaimer - my wife is pregnant, due next june. yay!
Rudd's won some points in the last few days... in light of what the US have said about him in the cables, and the (huge) embarrassment he's going through, on the same day he pledges to support Assange (well, it's his job after all), and points the finger squarely at the US for the leaks. nice one.
however, Gillard can eat a bag of dicks for her comments and subsequent dithering and failure to actually say why she feels Assange has committed a crime, or name an appropriate Australian or US law.
b4upoo said "secrecy", not "security". i believe there's still an argument that there is excessive secrecy, but inadequate security to prevent a mass leak from a (potentially) marginalised and disgruntled person in a minor rank.
i know a few people that would be quite flabbergasted at that statement. we're not talking about t-shirts here, or those horrible things you see women at clubs wearing that seem to actively work against the bodies of the wearers.
something that improves over naked (barring certain extremes like obese or anorexic people) is quite difficult to design if you think about it. this is why so many people prefer porn to fashion mags.
any competent terrorist would not be watching wikileaks for vital information - rather they'd be striking in a timely manner based on their own intelligence network.
really, this cable is from a year ago. not exactly timely information, which is no doubt why it was released.
that particular facility stopped producing the antivenin in question in 2008 i believe.
in fact, this and another similar "critical site" are cited in the Australian media as potential reasons to feel the US wasn't really taking the issue seriously, considering the Lucas Heights nuclear facility was not made a priority on the list of Australian infrastructure.
and Assange would have... what to gain from this strategy?
my strategy if i were to attempt to pwn a superpower or two with their own documents would be to stay squeaky clean and not fuck anyone, no matter how much they begged.
but then, i reject the thought of having to live a celibate life just because i was in the public eye.
it's not a matter of dismissal, just a matter of [citation needed].
you've got a herculean burden of proof on you (well, your ex i guess), but if this technique really works, you'll no doubt make it through and convince even the most skeptical of us.
of course, accusing the skeptical of slander is a good way to win everyone over.
you're on slashdot, so asking people to try it themselves will not work too well - there's not a statistically significant number of us that are having sex to produce a meaningful result:)
i can't quite read the sarcasm in your post, if there is any. you seem serious, and seem to by implying that promiscuity is a result of welfare.
should i point out that the US welfare system is not universal, and that the US population is certainly not the largest in the world. let's check the welfare situation in India and China, shall we?
however, i'll argue based on the assumption that what you say is true...
- welfare has selected for weak, dumb but fertile and promiscuous humans. - "Welfare supplies won't last forever".
therefore, when welfare runs out, this population will have no survival advantage, and possibly be at a disadvantage compared to the smarter, stronger and mating-for-life minority left behind from the pre-welfare halcyon days. this disadvantage would lead to a mass-extinction of the welfare slackers.
so what's the problem? you'll be left with a world of smart, strong, chaste and state-independent people, and the welfare system you hate will be no more. seems like you should be encouraging this outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
yep, just left one.
it left a bitter taste in my mouth.
clients can be such dickheads sometimes.
the good ones are great, but the mediocre ones are horrid. they never know what they want and expect you to show them, then change their mind and expect it re-done for free (failing to realise that slightly changing the camera move is not a small quick change, but one that requires the entire scene to be re-rendered).
the explosions are usually done in camera btw... and the compositing required to stick the actors in front of it are not at all difficult or expensive - the work experience guy can roto that in less than an hour.
I wish people would stop saying that the VFX are ruining moves. We're a tool used by the director (or, more often, by the studio) if that Director (or again, the studio) fail to utilize us within the story properly, how is it the VFX that are ruining movies?
exactly. VFX only ruin a movie if a fucking moron like Baz Luhrmann reads a magazine and gets excited about the amazing things that can be done... but you could (rightly) say that the movie was ruined before it got anywhere near a post house.
realism is proportional to budget more than it is to technology.
a big budget movie of yesteryear still had very realistic effects because they simply didn't try to do things that were not possible - sure they'd push the envelope, but not to the point of killing suspension of disbelief.
these days, movie makers want crazy big movie effects and they want them in EVERY SHOT. and they are not willing to pay for them.
so even with the most advanced software and most talented artists, stuff is going to look fake unless the client is willing to pay for the time it takes to make it look real.
tl;dr - bad effects mean miserly producers.
*whoosh*
amazing spambot still fails turing test... news at 11
where are me mod points? i spent them all in another stupid wikileaks thread.
claims like those deserve a nice, big [citation needed]
my wife does this, but her excuse is not having use of her right hand.
fell out of a tree.
who are you going to believe? the monkey can't even talk, and i heard he was drunk when he fell from the tree.
the researcher just happened by shortly afterwards and said "poor little monkey. never fear, i think i have just the thing for you!"
"One fairly small down side"
"You seem to be arguing that we should cover up the fact..."
ummm... you can leave now.
chill dude. it's not even got a head yet. it's a ball of near identical cells that has the potential to become something greater. or has the potential to miscarry. or grow ectopically and kill it's host. or grow up into the next Hitler (yay! Godwin!).
do you pray for all the unfertilized eggs? or all the sperm that end up wrapped in a tissue and flushed?
* disclaimer - my wife is pregnant, due next june. yay!
big wtf from me.
Rudd's won some points in the last few days... in light of what the US have said about him in the cables, and the (huge) embarrassment he's going through, on the same day he pledges to support Assange (well, it's his job after all), and points the finger squarely at the US for the leaks. nice one.
however, Gillard can eat a bag of dicks for her comments and subsequent dithering and failure to actually say why she feels Assange has committed a crime, or name an appropriate Australian or US law.
b4upoo said "secrecy", not "security". i believe there's still an argument that there is excessive secrecy, but inadequate security to prevent a mass leak from a (potentially) marginalised and disgruntled person in a minor rank.
Cranking out a new dress takes only a few hours.
i know a few people that would be quite flabbergasted at that statement. we're not talking about t-shirts here, or those horrible things you see women at clubs wearing that seem to actively work against the bodies of the wearers.
something that improves over naked (barring certain extremes like obese or anorexic people) is quite difficult to design if you think about it. this is why so many people prefer porn to fashion mags.
promiscuity and moral decay the direct result of DNA revelations. news at 11.
deeply religious communities would reject this as the secular scientific atheists trying to induce their daughters into promiscuity.
it's one of those things that can help us understand, but not excuse, someone's behaviour. while we still have free will genetics can't be an excuse.
any competent terrorist would not be watching wikileaks for vital information - rather they'd be striking in a timely manner based on their own intelligence network.
really, this cable is from a year ago. not exactly timely information, which is no doubt why it was released.
that particular facility stopped producing the antivenin in question in 2008 i believe.
in fact, this and another similar "critical site" are cited in the Australian media as potential reasons to feel the US wasn't really taking the issue seriously, considering the Lucas Heights nuclear facility was not made a priority on the list of Australian infrastructure.
and Assange would have... what to gain from this strategy?
my strategy if i were to attempt to pwn a superpower or two with their own documents would be to stay squeaky clean and not fuck anyone, no matter how much they begged.
but then, i reject the thought of having to live a celibate life just because i was in the public eye.
haha. your post is funny.
it's not a matter of dismissal, just a matter of [citation needed].
you've got a herculean burden of proof on you (well, your ex i guess), but if this technique really works, you'll no doubt make it through and convince even the most skeptical of us.
of course, accusing the skeptical of slander is a good way to win everyone over.
you're on slashdot, so asking people to try it themselves will not work too well - there's not a statistically significant number of us that are having sex to produce a meaningful result :)
what's this? straw men fighting each other?
evolution is not linear though - it has no ultimate goal.
the world in idiocracy would have collapsed long before the amusing point we see it at. something else would have taken our place.
let's not all assume we are the only species capable of reproduction.
i can't quite read the sarcasm in your post, if there is any. you seem serious, and seem to by implying that promiscuity is a result of welfare.
should i point out that the US welfare system is not universal, and that the US population is certainly not the largest in the world. let's check the welfare situation in India and China, shall we?
however, i'll argue based on the assumption that what you say is true...
- welfare has selected for weak, dumb but fertile and promiscuous humans.
- "Welfare supplies won't last forever".
therefore, when welfare runs out, this population will have no survival advantage, and possibly be at a disadvantage compared to the smarter, stronger and mating-for-life minority left behind from the pre-welfare halcyon days. this disadvantage would lead to a mass-extinction of the welfare slackers.
so what's the problem? you'll be left with a world of smart, strong, chaste and state-independent people, and the welfare system you hate will be no more. seems like you should be encouraging this outcome.