Nope; the two sets (upper and lower ship) were both contiguous sets since the TV series. I don't think there are shots even close to the movie's opening in the TV show (given the nature of TV and when commercials need come in), but the two ship sets were always contiguous, complete with roofs, practical lighting, etc. It's one of the more impressive sets in TV history.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Joss Whedon's Serenity features a nearly ten-minute long scene with no visible cuts (there is technically a seamless dissolve half-way through for technical reasons -- watch the DVD commentary and you'll see what I mean). Whedon didn't do it to show off or grab attention, but actually to make the audience feel safe and trusting after the rapid cuts and scene/flow changes found at the very beginning of the film.
I find rapid cuts annoying and a way to draw the viewer away from a lack of detail or a scene that can't carry itself on the acting/sets/dialog/action alone. I don't seek out long takes though -- like most things in movies: if they're done really well you shouldn't be thinking about them, but rather about the plot.
Actually, it totally costs taxpayers a tonne more money if the injuries sustained after an accident are worse because of a lack of protective equipment (provided you have socialized medicine, which both Canada and the UK do -- they also both have these type of exception laws in place). I drive a motorcycle and have been in accidents; helmets have kept me from needing anymore than a few weeks rest and a single trip to the ER.
Having billions of dollars in chequing strikes me as incredibly insane.
I actually started using Macs right around the time Coda came out, and used it for years 'til I switched to TextMate. Part of my switch was because my coding was becoming much more varied and I wanted more of TextMate's tricks/extensibility.
I still use and quite like Coda. But TextMate is my main weapon now-a-days.
Complex learning-curve, they're usually ugly-as-hell, slow and bloated, a lot are Java-based (so they feel less OS-native), and I can accomplish most of my tasks in a terminal window or TextMate commands. Plus the actual text editors in most IDEs feel second-rate, if not like afterthoughts. I spend a lot of time looking at/writing code/tests/etc. as a programmer, so a good text editor makes me happy.
I very rarely use XCode, and only use it when developing Mac/iPhone stuff. Largely because of Interface Builder, all that sort of stuff -- using XCode makes sense then. But I write big projects in OO PHP, Ruby, etc., and use TextMate projects for all of it.
I should have said that while I do use XCode, I don't spend most of my time in it even when I do, and don't think I take too much advantage of its IDE-ness. Maybe I just suck at using IDEs?
Aside from using XCode, I pretty much never use IDEs, especially for web development. I just use TextMate for anything not in XCode (and I even edit a lot of C/C++/Obj-C in XCode nowadays, and other apps for performance, testing, etc. (or write TextMate commands to run external commands).
Would moving the servers, or serving certain countries from another one (Canada? Europe?) help at all? This is obviously incredibly shitty.
A few developers (i.e. the 5-person team I'm on) in my organization (government) have superuser privileges on their own machines (Macs) and a few of us can sudo on our local Xserve (which is totally internal and run by us/our local Mac sysadmin, not the "corporate" IT folks) to do things like read log files, update MacPorts, etc. We don't have superuser privileges on any of the production servers (though we should have a bit more flexibility than we have on said servers, which could be setup through sudo without allowing us the ability to change software on the machine, etc.).
You write a piece of software, and you license it. Making something GPL might be a pain for other users who aren't interested in that license, but them's the ropes, right? It's not like GPLing your software will lead to its demise (see: Linux, WordPress, etc.).
As cool as Amazon can be, this was a lame move by them from many perspectives, and I hope this guy wins the case. Perhaps it could set a precedent against deleting data from users' devices in general.
Actually, they're talking about multiple processes, not multithreading. Threads all belong to a single process, which, if it crashes, will bring down all of its threads. Running the shell in one process, then each tab/window in its own process means that, much like Chrome, a single page can't bring down the myriad of tabs/windows you might have open, if you browse the web like I do.
I thought the magic of Google is that it's not (as) personalized, and I can get information outside my group of friends/peers. Frankly, my friends are great, but I don't go to them for advice on, say, programming; I go to Google. What's more, I couldn't get a lot of the info I get from search engines from my friends, because they just don't know. Social networking is awesome, but using Facebook in place of Google sounds like many steps back, at least the way it's being presented here.