Remember people choose to see a film *before* they have actually seen it. Games have big followings, therefore people will go to see the film based on their love of the game. Only afterwards do they wish they hadn't seen it. Uwe at least knows he doens't have to do much to get an audience other than a licence and some shots for a trailer.
I'm with you there, I love Pratchett. I've been going through them from The Colour Of Magic to the last Discworld book (just finished Going Postal) and while they have all been wonderful, the most popular book's are my least favourite. Time and again he makes characters that I can imagine clearly and stories that are compelling enough to be genuinely thrilling. The heavy influence of science and satire just make them perfect for me.
IMHO the LOTR trilogy and The Hobbit are terrible reads that are overly detailed, I just couldn't care enough to read that much of either. I always laugh at those who complain about the LOTR movies, as if someone could have done something better, without making them longer. The people who are complaining I doubt would ever like any LOTR film because the reason they like the books are exactly what would make them terrible films, which would be terrible. Kubrick was hated by many authors (esp King) because he didn't stick to the books, he messed with the script to make something different because he felt it was pointless to just dramatise the book. I must agree, as long as the nature, point of the story (if there is one) and the vision/world is maintained then the film should be able use artistic licence, according to my friends who have read the LOTR books in great detail, Jackson did just that. For contrast Troy would be an example of messing too much as he completely removed the supernatural element, which was crucial to the story. I was never going to really love the televised Pratchett features as I have read them too much but I did enjoy them, especially if I ask myself what more could they have done - I can't really think of anything, other than detail that *isn't important* to the telling of the story. They did a good job.
I like Del Toro's work (what I have seen), I consider Pan's Labryinth to be the best film post-millenium I have seen but it seemed to be very much a personal story he wanted to tell. Hopefully he adds enough of his own imagination to make a great The Hobbit, and doesn't stick to rigidly to the book. Hobbit fans will not like it either way.
I am not sure that is entirely fair. Facebook specifically gives the option for each photo album as to whether you friends, your friends friends, or the whole world has access to your pictures on Facebook.
Your friends could of course download your pictures and then post to other people them themselves but that makes Facebook no less secure than emailing your photos out. The difference is on Facebook people don't go around recieving and forwarding the photos on, they just look at the albums, so I think that photos get passed between groups of friends less often than if they are distributed, of course it can happen quite easily and probably does. If your friends can see them in softcopy you have given up sole control over them. Nobody would transmit sensitive photos to their friends (they wouldn't want them to see them anymore than anyone else) and I don't think anyone I know would be stupid enough to upload those photos to Facebook either. I don't use Facebook's applications (like Superwall) but it is a great way to share photos that involve them (such as parties etc), I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the applications my friends use respect my privacy choices on Facebook if Facebook itself respects them (I am not convinced that it does however).
The bottom line is that if you don't want others to see your photos, you probably don't want your friends to see them either.
The real bottom line is i keep getting distracted and I'm not sure what I am trying to say really.
encourage people to speak out if they believe How many times do we have to say it, SCIENCE is not about BELIEF. You can believe whatever you want but in a science class (or academic institution) and officially (the government position) the thinking should be one of reason, evidence and demonstration of understanding. Belief has no place.
Remember if intelligent design is correct then it can be explained, demonstrated and then analysed further. Until then it is as much a waste of time as it is trying to work out how much flour Flying Spagetti Monster is made up of.
I had this at LHR back in November (coincidentally I was flying to JFK). The option was to stay in line, or be fast tracked to the front, via scanning. They described the process as an 'X-ray' which I would have questioned but as I was quite keen to be progressed I simply said "okay". The stances certainly weren't easy, especially as you have to remain still, they had 3 different positions as I remember it.
Yes, that would be interesting to know. But one of the more insightful views I've heard recently in the China vs. Tibet matter, is that "after so many years of communist rule, it is hard for Chinese people to make a distinction between government, communist party, policy and country". As a result, criticism of Chinese actions concerning Tibet may be felt not as attacks on policy, but attacks on the Chinese people and country. Don't know if that is true, but I'd welcome readers from China to comment on that.
There is a big difference between saying "you are bad" and saying "you are doing something bad". I guess the real gain is that more people (including the Chinese) are talking about Tibet now, and maybe someday the Chinese *people* will realize that Tibetans just want the same thing as the Chinese: run their own affairs, be left alone, and live in peace with their neighbors.
This is clearly one of the real problems with the West criticizing China but it isn't unique to China. Many Americans reacted in a similar manner when the rest of the world criticized the Iraq war (freedom fries anyone) , people took it to be an attack on themselves as well as their government. Someone yesterday pointed out the similarity to the US civil war where the Southerners took criticism of slavery with a personal attack on themselves and their heritage. Just like faith versus fact, it is impossible to have a sane and worthwhile argument.
Back when they were just ADSL (before they brought the cable network) they *were* pretty good. Then they merged their ADSL infrastructure with their new cable infrastructure and their ADSL service basically stopped working for a couple of months (not to mention their customer service). I couldn't even load the bbc page. So I upped sticks to Zen
Zen Internet (disclaimer: I have no link other than customer) send out emails at the 50%, 75% and 90% marks. They also have a Firefox extension that clearly shows how much you have downloaded and left to download. And more importantly they don't traffic shape.
I dropped Virgin's ADSL service, after they linked it up with their Cable infrastructure and everything ground to a halt (and despite many people all over the broadband sites reporting no service, they refused to acknowledge there was a problem. "Have you run your anti virus software?").
Now I am with Zen Internet and am very happy, the actual speeds are good and they are entirely clear about usage limits. They even have a Firefox extension to show how much you are using in the month. nb: I don't have access to Cable so that isn't a choice.
Seriously? Are you this stupid? It's only that resource hungry if you want to have every god-damn feature enabled. Should they have chopped out all of the extra-pretty features so it looked and ran as well as Half-Life 2? Then it would run on four-year-old hardware (like it does now, if you turn stuff off!) but the people that do have fast hardware wouldn't get any benefit. And as you beef up your computer, you'll be able to continue to get extra enjoyment out of the game for years as you dial it up. Please refer to another clearly "very stupid" poster who has replied to my post above - The Post
And the fact that it can't have every feature running is kind of my point, it isn't that he can make new really pretty features, it is that he isn't the best placed person on how to optimize them for actual game play, there may be more valuable opinions out there. I am not dissing the act of chasing the carrot, I am attacking those who release buggy software which is way too ambitious about the hardware's ability to make up for what seems to be shoddy engineering.
Cevat Yerli, one of the Crytek developers responsible for the graphically impressive titles Far Cry and Crysis Is he the same developer who made a game (Crysis) so resource hungry that no gaming platform can handle it? Shouldn't we be asking someone who knows how to make a game look great on current hardware, such as Valve perhaps?
There's more info (including a different MIT team, which was the one I thought of, when I read the summary). Is contained in this text of a Horizon episode.here
Reasonable? Apparently you already have made up your mind that it will be an '[...] inflamatory, hatefull [sic] movie', whereas you even state no one has seen it yet. No he didn't, he is clearly writing in the hypothetical, as evidenced by the statement in his earlier sentence of "Even if the movie is offensive and inflammatory (and no one has seen it yet)".
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points. So I assume, unlike the grandparent, you have seen the film.
Wouldn't that be like the transmission system in some modern cars which use CVT - because there is no gear change experience, the manufacturers sometimes add in a sport mode that simulates a surge and then lull of power, so the drivers can "change gear".
Another case of technological advances being held back by a human comfort in the way things are.
Apart from that, I wonder why the Air Force is so keen on keeping people from watching their commercial. Because we can't have the terrorists copying them. - it's best to keep these recruitment videos classified.
You should see him when interviewing his own bosses, he is no different. I challenge any commercial broadcaster to be that balanced. I am always amazed at US 'news'-casters. They are either completely partial or as sycophantic as chat show hosts (no doubt just happy to have the interviewee), no wonder idiots like Bush (and I am not attacking his policies just his ability to display intelligence) get elected, no one actually questions people, the power is in the interviewee to be present and answer. In the UK Paxman is so revered by the public that at an election all the major party leaders go to interview with him - they would be considered cowards if they didn't. Of course they never go to interview with him when it isn't an election because they are also very afraid of him.
Some of the beeb's journalism is lacking (Paramount, I'm looking at you) but Newsnight is possibly the most unbiased news program in the world - everyone gets the Rottwieler treatment.
The BBC still use realplayer for radio broadcasts don't they?
Here in the UK people are going to trust the program the beeb tells them they need to use to listen to The Archers online. Heck many people here on/. wanted the BBC to use Realplayer for cross platform compatibility rather than the Windows-only thing they decided on using.
Slashdot Mirror
Try his best work Pan's Labyrinth before judging Del Toro. It isn't based on a comic book and I'm sure the lead actors paid their taxes.
Remember people choose to see a film *before* they have actually seen it. Games have big followings, therefore people will go to see the film based on their love of the game. Only afterwards do they wish they hadn't seen it. Uwe at least knows he doens't have to do much to get an audience other than a licence and some shots for a trailer.
I'm with you there, I love Pratchett. I've been going through them from The Colour Of Magic to the last Discworld book (just finished Going Postal) and while they have all been wonderful, the most popular book's are my least favourite.
Time and again he makes characters that I can imagine clearly and stories that are compelling enough to be genuinely thrilling. The heavy influence of science and satire just make them perfect for me.
IMHO the LOTR trilogy and The Hobbit are terrible reads that are overly detailed, I just couldn't care enough to read that much of either.
I always laugh at those who complain about the LOTR movies, as if someone could have done something better, without making them longer. The people who are complaining I doubt would ever like any LOTR film because the reason they like the books are exactly what would make them terrible films, which would be terrible. Kubrick was hated by many authors (esp King) because he didn't stick to the books, he messed with the script to make something different because he felt it was pointless to just dramatise the book. I must agree, as long as the nature, point of the story (if there is one) and the vision/world is maintained then the film should be able use artistic licence, according to my friends who have read the LOTR books in great detail, Jackson did just that. For contrast Troy would be an example of messing too much as he completely removed the supernatural element, which was crucial to the story.
I was never going to really love the televised Pratchett features as I have read them too much but I did enjoy them, especially if I ask myself what more could they have done - I can't really think of anything, other than detail that *isn't important* to the telling of the story. They did a good job.
I like Del Toro's work (what I have seen), I consider Pan's Labryinth to be the best film post-millenium I have seen but it seemed to be very much a personal story he wanted to tell. Hopefully he adds enough of his own imagination to make a great The Hobbit, and doesn't stick to rigidly to the book. Hobbit fans will not like it either way.
I am not sure that is entirely fair. Facebook specifically gives the option for each photo album as to whether you friends, your friends friends, or the whole world has access to your pictures on Facebook.
Your friends could of course download your pictures and then post to other people them themselves but that makes Facebook no less secure than emailing your photos out. The difference is on Facebook people don't go around recieving and forwarding the photos on, they just look at the albums, so I think that photos get passed between groups of friends less often than if they are distributed, of course it can happen quite easily and probably does. If your friends can see them in softcopy you have given up sole control over them. Nobody would transmit sensitive photos to their friends (they wouldn't want them to see them anymore than anyone else) and I don't think anyone I know would be stupid enough to upload those photos to Facebook either. I don't use Facebook's applications (like Superwall) but it is a great way to share photos that involve them (such as parties etc), I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the applications my friends use respect my privacy choices on Facebook if Facebook itself respects them (I am not convinced that it does however).
The bottom line is that if you don't want others to see your photos, you probably don't want your friends to see them either.
The real bottom line is i keep getting distracted and I'm not sure what I am trying to say really.
Oh no, I sense a schism in the pastafarian movement. The ric-ites and the glutinis may split.
Remember if intelligent design is correct then it can be explained, demonstrated and then analysed further. Until then it is as much a waste of time as it is trying to work out how much flour Flying Spagetti Monster is made up of.
I had this at LHR back in November (coincidentally I was flying to JFK). The option was to stay in line, or be fast tracked to the front, via scanning.
They described the process as an 'X-ray' which I would have questioned but as I was quite keen to be progressed I simply said "okay".
The stances certainly weren't easy, especially as you have to remain still, they had 3 different positions as I remember it.
There is a big difference between saying "you are bad" and saying "you are doing something bad". I guess the real gain is that more people (including the Chinese) are talking about Tibet now, and maybe someday the Chinese *people* will realize that Tibetans just want the same thing as the Chinese: run their own affairs, be left alone, and live in peace with their neighbors.
This is clearly one of the real problems with the West criticizing China but it isn't unique to China. Many Americans reacted in a similar manner when the rest of the world criticized the Iraq war (freedom fries anyone) , people took it to be an attack on themselves as well as their government. Someone yesterday pointed out the similarity to the US civil war where the Southerners took criticism of slavery with a personal attack on themselves and their heritage. Just like faith versus fact, it is impossible to have a sane and worthwhile argument.Back when they were just ADSL (before they brought the cable network) they *were* pretty good. Then they merged their ADSL infrastructure with their new cable infrastructure and their ADSL service basically stopped working for a couple of months (not to mention their customer service). I couldn't even load the bbc page. So I upped sticks to Zen
Zen Internet (disclaimer: I have no link other than customer) send out emails at the 50%, 75% and 90% marks. They also have a Firefox extension that clearly shows how much you have downloaded and left to download. And more importantly they don't traffic shape.
Please see my earlier reply to a similar post. right here
I dropped Virgin's ADSL service, after they linked it up with their Cable infrastructure and everything ground to a halt (and despite many people all over the broadband sites reporting no service, they refused to acknowledge there was a problem. "Have you run your anti virus software?").
Now I am with Zen Internet and am very happy, the actual speeds are good and they are entirely clear about usage limits. They even have a Firefox extension to show how much you are using in the month.
nb: I don't have access to Cable so that isn't a choice.
I really want to mod this +1 funny but I know I shouldn't
And the fact that it can't have every feature running is kind of my point, it isn't that he can make new really pretty features, it is that he isn't the best placed person on how to optimize them for actual game play, there may be more valuable opinions out there. I am not dissing the act of chasing the carrot, I am attacking those who release buggy software which is way too ambitious about the hardware's ability to make up for what seems to be shoddy engineering.
There's more info (including a different MIT team, which was the one I thought of, when I read the summary). Is contained in this text of a Horizon episode.here
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points. So I assume, unlike the grandparent, you have seen the film.
Wouldn't that be like the transmission system in some modern cars which use CVT - because there is no gear change experience, the manufacturers sometimes add in a sport mode that simulates a surge and then lull of power, so the drivers can "change gear".
Another case of technological advances being held back by a human comfort in the way things are.
Thanks, that almost made my day.
- it's best to keep these recruitment videos classified.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
And if you look to your eariler sibling reply, you notice a famous video of Paxman grilling a government minister.
Find me a more unbiased news source, not an unbiased, just a less biased news source.
You should see him when interviewing his own bosses, he is no different. I challenge any commercial broadcaster to be that balanced.
I am always amazed at US 'news'-casters. They are either completely partial or as sycophantic as chat show hosts (no doubt just happy to have the interviewee), no wonder idiots like Bush (and I am not attacking his policies just his ability to display intelligence) get elected, no one actually questions people, the power is in the interviewee to be present and answer. In the UK Paxman is so revered by the public that at an election all the major party leaders go to interview with him - they would be considered cowards if they didn't. Of course they never go to interview with him when it isn't an election because they are also very afraid of him.
Some of the beeb's journalism is lacking (Paramount, I'm looking at you) but Newsnight is possibly the most unbiased news program in the world - everyone gets the Rottwieler treatment.
Wekk I can think of one recently deceased luminary who was known for being bigger than 'very large', they should name it in his honour.
The BBC still use realplayer for radio broadcasts don't they?
/. wanted the BBC to use Realplayer for cross platform compatibility rather than the Windows-only thing they decided on using.
Here in the UK people are going to trust the program the beeb tells them they need to use to listen to The Archers online. Heck many people here on
I didn't know whether to MOD this funny or not. Someone help.