Batty: Did you get your precious photos?
Leon: ...Someone was there.
Batty: Men?
Leon: [nod]
Batty: LEGO Men?
Leon: ...Someone was there.
Batty: Men?
Leon: [nod]
Batty: LEGO Men?
That's because you follow shit photogs. Despite what was mentioned in the article (about Instagram as a communications tool), I do with Instagram what I do with Flickr; I follow good photographers (for the most part). The end result is that my stream is full of well thought-out images produced with a machine and software combo that are both limiting and enabling at the same time. It's quite interesting, though I wouldn't place it in front of my Flickr stream.
Similarly, I would like to fully, and completely condemn those stupid "Freeze-dried Ice Cream" they sell you at ridiculous prices for at the Smithsonian Museum of Air and Space.
No, that shit is *not* ice cream. Dried ≠ Ice. QED.
I've heard people say that, too. I think they're just confused between a band being "overrated" and them not liking the band as much as many people do. If anything, the Beatles are underrated... in that not many people know exactly how *much* they've contributed to modern music.
I distinctly remember reading about a man who hadn't slept once for years, and was doing fine; and also that lack of sleep *per se* won't kill anybody. So the question I have is, are these people really dying *because* they can't sleep? Or, are insomnia and the eventual death of these people both symptoms of the same disease?
We are mostly in agreement, then, about CGI; which brings me back to my original comment:
" Alien and Aliens were so awesome b/c they didn't use CGI."
This *is* a bullcrap statement, because:
(1) using (anything but the most rudimentary) CGI was never an option for the directors of those films
(2) there can be, as you yourself agree, great films that use heavy CGI---as long as it fits your criteria of unobtrusive use of CGI
Ergo, Alien and Aliens were awesome, irregardless of CGI: or, in other words, the lack of CGI in Alien/Aliens plaid no part, whatsoever, in those movies being awesome.
It's pretty simple logic.
And I'd agree those movies would be considered crap; but those are cases where CGI not being able to polish a turd. And we all know you can't polish a turd, so CGI will *never* make a crappy movie good.
Conversely, CGI, regardless of how much a director chooses to use it will *never* make an excellent movie suck. It might put off certain people just a little bit, sure. But it will never make it suck.
So you basically contradicted your earlier statement; you're saying that CGI does not necessarily make a movies crap; it just needs to be used right.
How would you rate movies like the (first) Matrix and the LoTR series; they were all VERY heavy on the CGI. Did they suck because of it?
@darwinDMG
(read esp. usage note)
Y'all need to learn the difference between "correlation" and "causation". "CGI" and "Alien 3 sucking" are correlates. "CGI" was *not* the cause of "Alien 3 sucking". Basically, what fryhole said.
With all due respect:
" Alien and Aliens were so awesome b/c they didn't use CGI. It's hard to get into CGI-heavy movies."
That's a load of crap statement. When Alien and Aliens came out, CGI in movies was virtually non-existent. It wasn't like the directors had a choice, and chose not to use CGI, which made the movies great; they were great irregardless of the presence/absence of CGI.
That's the thing; in this analogy, Apple *isn't* shooting everyone else.... yet, at least; again, it's just running for the gun. The equivalent of shooting everyone else is, after getting the gun (having a *monopoly*, shall we say?), using that to shoot everyone else down (anti-competitive conduct).
Apple *doesn't* have a monopoly; it doesn't have the gun yet; and hence it can't shoot everyone else. It *might* gain such powers in the future, true, and they *may* act that way when they do. But, we won't know till they do, and, you'd hope that the system wouldn't allow them to have that power to yield in the first place.
That's an analogy fail if I've ever seen one.
More like this; you live in the Wild West. You've got a half a dozen cutthroats in the room, one gun laying on the floor, in the middle of the room. Anyone is allowed to go grab that gun. Do you run for the gun or not? And, can you blame anyone for running for the gun?
The funny thing is, even assuming everything you say is factual (which, as has been pointed out already, debatable), none of the issues you point out are actually Apple's problem, but, like you say, the problem is in the system. E.g., if all those things that Apple is suing on, are, indeed, "prior art", then the courts *should* dismiss the lawsuits. It's not in Apple or its investors interests to make up their own mind about what of their patent portfolio are prior art, and, hence, should not be actively guarded, *as the current laws pretty much force you to do, if you want to retain rights to those ideas*.
So, you're just barking up the wrong tree.
I guess that's what I was getting at; a 1 mil apt. in NYC doesn't sound like the "elite" that the "1%" moniker connotes. I guess impression now is that if owning a 1 mil apt makes you the 1%, and you're still not the "elite", then that's just a testament as to how screwed up the society is :\
If you earn 330K a year, you're going to live somewhere that's worth more than a million; that's all I'm saying'. My friend maybe made 6 figures. Nowhere near 330K. (also, some studies put the top 1% at around 500k). But my point actually was questioning the price of this place. Is it really only a million?
Wait, I only see pictures of lounges; no shots of the actual apartments?
Also, a million for an apartment in NYC doesn't sound too expensive, and surely wouldn't put you in the 1%. I know a photographer who owned a million-dollar flat in Chelsea. Nowhere near the 1% :D
Tornado = pork = bad mothafucka. I don't mind it at all :-) I can let the rainbowhuggers have all the tofu they want.
Wonderfully written article. I'm a big Jobs fan, but articles like these are more than welcome :-)
They're not "unleashing" anything in the area. Jesus Christ. Could you at least read the article you're linking to before posting?
They're going to attach radiation meters on *WILD* monkeys that are living in the area to begin with, and let them roam freely, as they've always done, and are doing so right now. The meters are going to detach themselves automatically so that they will not become life-long hindrances to the monkeys.
The reason why they're not using people (who are in the area already, doing all sorts of studies) and robots (which, again, are deployed all over the area, doing all sorts of work), is because you can't send people and robots into every little corner of the affected area; the idea is to get as many data points from as wide an area as possible.
So, the only "bad" thing people are doing to the monkeys is catching them and forcing them to wear (likely very unintrusive) geiger counters for up to two months. Worthy of a PETA terrorism threat? Sure. Works of the devil? Hardly.
They're going to attach radiation meters on *WILD* monkeys that are living in the area to begin with, and let them roam freely, as they've always done, and are doing so right now. The meters are going to detach themselves automatically so that they will not become life-long hindrances to the monkeys.
The reason why they're not using people (who are in the area already, doing all sorts of studies) and robots (which, again, are deployed all over the area, doing all sorts of work), is because you can't send people and robots into every little corner of the affected area; the idea is to get as many data points from as wide an area as possible.
So, the only "bad" thing people are doing to the monkeys is catching them and forcing them to wear (likely very unintrusive) geiger counters for up to two months. Worthy of a PETA terrorism threat? Sure. Works of the devil? Hardly.
