The first film? There was no CGI. It was all models and Mitchell motion control cameras. Your graphics prof doesn't know what he's talking about.

The World Trade Center buildings were built to withstand an airplane crash as well. Only the crash they were counting on was from an aircraft with the fuel capacity of a 707. The 757s that crashed carried far more fuel, which burned longer, weakening the structure to the point of collapse. Likewise the seawall at Fukushima was six feet too short, because its engineered height was based on historical data. tl;dr You only engineer for the current threat, not the future threat.

Being a plumber is the only reliable way of getting the benefits of trickle down from a plutocrat.

It's not like Dreamweaver was that great of a product for any substantial period of time, and as someone who bought Macromedia Studio products before I switched to Adobe for anything other than PageMaker, it's not like Macromedia products were priced more competitively than Adobe. The main reason I switched was Adobe bought Macromedia, and with it, Flash, at a time when I was doing a lot of Flash dev. Now that HTML5 and JQuery are making Flash obsolete, I need nothing more powerful than Smultron to edit pages. Since there really aren't a lot of radical new features I use whenever Adobe releases a new version of CS (I don't do 3D work, nor do I use filters regularly), I'm content to stay a couple of versions behind these days until I absolutely have to upgrade.

I'm not sure you understand how film exposure works, otherwise you wouldn't make the statement that there are "pretty good negative scanners out there." A Panaflex or Arriflex with a top quality lens and loaded with a top quality B&W film stock is going to provide a LP/mm depth that will exceed most (not all) scanners capability, unless you push it to an almost unmanageable file size. So there's that. Plus the depth of tone you get from the film's inherit structure can't be replicated (yet) with CCD's. The only digital camera now that can even approach the depth of film's inherit tone and grain is a Red Cinema camera shooting in RAW format, but you risk losing that benefit, depending on the level of compression used to create manageable files sizes for editing. Then despite what ever steps were taken to maintain either the film to digital transfer, or the high quality original digital shots, depending on the equipment used to render the final product can take all that away. Not all post-production digital films, Blu-Ray included, look great once rendered. That in and of itself is an art form. So just because it's shiny and new and electronic doesn't mean it's going to be better. A brand new LP, carefully mastered, played on a high quality turntable through a tube amp will provide higher dynamic range than any digital audio system ever could. There are some place analog's always going to win.

We figured that out.

The point being made was Cox is shooting on B&W film stock, then transferring to digital for editing/post, and since there's loss of the range of grey/tones when you transfer from analog to digital images, why bother? My point was even with that loss, the range of tones would still be greater than color film stock transferred to digital then desaturated, or shooting digital then desaturating.

Better now?

You'll still have more range and depth than you would with shooting on color film stock and desaturating during the editing process, or shooting digital B&W.

I think it's the fundamental flaw in the model which has been built over time with start-ups, and most especially with internet start-ups, that a particular platform will practically give hand-jobs to developers to take their API and do something with it, which help grows the platform, and allows the developers to grow as well. Then as soon as the platform has some level of maturity, the API is re-written, limiting its use, which then strangles the small dev start up which grew as a result of the API.

It's a dance with the devil to try to build your success on the kindness of others, but at the same time, remembering Wheaton's First Rule of Human Interaction ("Don't be a dick") as well as the fact that the success of one's platform is correlated to the number of people who made your platform more fun because of their involvement would be a good thing.

Troll? Just for remembering something wrong? You must be loads of fun at parties.

But you kind of need humanity to a) develop new gravity wave technologies and b) then actually enjoy the benefits of said new technologies. Unless of course you see these new gravity wave devices as a lagniappe for your robot and AI friends.

I don't know about that. Scientology, for all its ills and faults, doe not try to subjugate women. LDS, on the other hand, thrives as a result of it.

Which apparently, in your case, is a future without humor.

Nope, the same applies to business. People in their 20's are willing to worker longer hours and for less money than someone who is older, has a longer resume and is worth more in salary, and is less willing to devote stupidly long hours to a career which is already established. Those industries which can make their quarterly reports look good by throwing more workers at a problem will always be inclined to hire those who work longer for less. When I think back to my 20's and what I thought was a lot of money then versus what I know I need now, I realize why I was easily exploitable. It's not because you're good and smart, it's because you might be good, you might be smart, but they'll settle for how long you'll work for as little as they can pay. If you turn out to be a rockstar, they might promote you, but more than likely they'll use you for what they can get out of you, and then hire a replacement when you get a job that pays more for fewer hours.

Not that correlation equals causality, but the fact an employee thinks it's a great idea to work hard to buy an expensive cell phone to take pictures of food from a trendy restaurant is not lost on upper management.

"You know——for things."

There is a valid neurological reason why this occurs. The pre-frontal cortex doesn't become the dominant part of the brain until easily the mid-20's, and in some people not until much later in life.

So why there is a lot of intelligence with regard to understanding processes and theories (such as major shifts in mathematics and astrophysics), the common sense/executive function parts of the brain are a while away from development and dominance.

The upside of this, IMHO, is making videos of the lighting of farts and assorted bicycle/skateboard pranks and stunts. While I've learned enough at my age to know that in practice these are not good ideas, I still admire the late-teens, early twenties mindset that feels compelled to think this stuff up and make me laugh.