Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Most of you have it... (Score 1) 99

by Reziac (#47563527) Attached to: Newly Discovered Virus Widespread in Human Gut

Considering that wild mice who live in proximity to humans markedly prefer to eat stuff humans have touched ... I imagine you'd have to find wilderness mice to study!

Zoo primates could be 'contaminated' as well.

Looks like some future researcher is in for a long tramp through the back of beyond. :)

Comment: Re:Trailer not HFR? (Score 2) 49

by Dutch Gun (#47563319) Attached to: The Hobbit: the Battle of Five Armies Trailer Released

Believe me, 48FPS is not the future. Or if it is, then there is a long way to go in setting it up and filming it properly.

It probably is, but I'm guessing our generation will have a really hard time accepting it. Our minds have been conditioned to think of 24 FPS displays as "cinematic" and higher FPS (30 or higher) at "cheaper", because for years the TV images we've seen *have* looked much "cheaper". It's an association that I don't think we can easily rationalize our way out of. Why do you think videogames have gone so far as to artificially render fake film grain or lens flare artifacts? That's a completely illogical thing to do except for the pleasant association people have with the look of traditional movie media.

Simply put, I think the high frame rate and high fidelity end up causing a negative association in our minds. It's not that it really looks worse - we're just not used to it looking quite so sharp and fluid, and it just doesn't feel "cinematic" to us. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to. Honestly, nothing else makes much sense to me, because otherwise, we're always pushing to make the picture better, more realistic, etc. After all, you can't really blame increased frame rate for making a movie set look more "fake", right? Film has always been a "high resolution" experience, after all.

Or, put another way, I think film technology just fell into the uncanny valley for some people, where it looks so close to reality that their brains are rebelling a bit and causing distractions, which leads to a poor viewing experience.

Comment: Re: Neither (Score 1) 137

by martin-boundary (#47563013) Attached to: Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus?

That's just silly. How about I put a site behind a "paywall" that says I serve annoying ads.

Yup, that's fine.

Then how about I make the paywall free with no registration.

That would be stupid, as it makes it trivial to traverse it. But you are free to do as you please.

Then how about I make the paywall invisible and expect you to just go away if you don't like the way I've set up my paywall on my site.

That would be wishful thinking. Whereas in your imagination, you see a paywall, in actual fact there isn't one. You are free to imagine anything you like, and I am free to only use cold hard facts in my decision processes. I see that there is no paywall, so I will step over "it" anytime I please. There, that's how the world works.

Comment: Re:Neither (Score 1) 137

by martin-boundary (#47562981) Attached to: Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus?

like it or not, that's what consumers want.

If that was true, then ad blocking tools would not be very popular. They are, so this isn't true.

wanting to get paid for a service you provide is not evil. i assume you provide a service for your day job that you already admitted you get paid for? so you are you evil? no, it's just that you decided the work you do is worth getting paid for. well, great, bully for you then huh?

Actually, I only get paid because I signed a contract to provide my services in return for payment. The contract represents a mutually beneficial prior agreement.

If I went to a random shop on a saturday morning, and started washing their windows, and then I went inside and demanded to be paid - because I feel that it's fair to be paid for a service I give - I'd be laughed out of the shop. The windows didn't need washing, and I was blocking the customers. And rightly so, because there really should have been a prior agreement in place. Even as simple as entering the shop, and _asking_ if I can wash the windows in return for money.

I don't have an agreement with any website to view their ads. As such, if the operators come to me and demand I look at their ads, I will laugh in their face, and continue to use an ad blocker.

Agreements matter, otherwise one side is deluding themselves. The world doesn't operate on wishful thinking.

Comment: Re:Neither (Score 1) 137

by martin-boundary (#47562935) Attached to: Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus?
Yup, even open source projects can do with donations, and I have no problem with that. But a donation is a voluntary thing. It's not an entitlement. And if an open source project is incapable of surviving periods of time solely on a purely voluntary donation system, then the project and its goals should be rethought.

It's no different when a company finds that the market doesn't support all the things it wants to do. Companies with cashflow problems need to make hard decisions. Open source projects with cashflow problems need to choose what they provide too. The difference is that a for-profit company cannot offer _any_ services without an income, while an open source project can, through the pro-bono work by the members of the project.

Comment: The Hobbit didn't take the material seriously (Score 3, Interesting) 49

by sjbe (#47562757) Attached to: The Hobbit: the Battle of Five Armies Trailer Released

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

The movies are stretched and it shows. They simply didn't have enough plot or action to fill the time and I got fairly bored at times. There are seemingly endless and mostly pointless action scenes that serve no purpose and frankly aren't all that well done either. The special effects were rushed. The dialog they added is insultingly bad. Etc... While I won't say they are horrible money grab movies on the level of say The Phantom Menace, they could have been a LOT better even if they had just spent more time in the editing room. Basically they knew they would be a commercial success so they really didn't try very hard.

LOTR all had battle scenes that took up half the movies that were too long. Songs were not included and plot from the book cut to make room for action and Hollywood.

The Hobbit is worse regarding the action scenes - the ones in LOTR didn't feel nearly as stretched out. And as for the "songs", there are lyrics but no actual music in the books so any music would be contrived. And frankly NOBODY wanted these movies to be a musical. (If you did then you are the only one) I sure as hell didn't go into them wanting to hear a bunch of "music" and I've read the Lord of the Rings probably close to 20 times. That is not what is the really interesting bit about the books - it's more of an intellectual curiosity than anything else that would have been terrible on the big screen.

Comment: Re:Don't let the facts get in your way (Score 1) 685

by Jeremiah Cornelius (#47562731) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

So. You are able to regurgitate the Israeli propaganda that was fed to the world's press organizations, 40 years ago - building the myth of the ruthless Palestinian and the incomparable IDF.

But the BBC - that revolutionary hotbed of anti-Israeli sentiment - had this to report, confirming what Victor Ostrovsky and others had intimated for many years:

But newly released documents contain a claim that the 1976 rescue of hostages, kidnapped on an Air France flight and held in Entebbe in Uganda, was not all it seemed.

A UK government file on the crisis, released from the National Archives, contains a claim that Israel itself was behind the hijacking.

An unnamed contact from the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association told a British diplomat in Paris that the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) collaborated to seize the plane.

The flight was seized shortly after it took off from Athens and was flown to Entebbe, where 98 people were held hostage, many of them Israeli citizens.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6710289.stm

Comment: Re:Such a Waste (Score 3, Insightful) 49

by khasim (#47562675) Attached to: The Hobbit: the Battle of Five Armies Trailer Released

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

The book? Nothing. It's a decent story. I like it.

But if you're talking about the movie trilogy then there's a problem. It isn't "The Hobbit". It's a movie that wants to be "tolkienesque" and uses names and scenes that Tolkien had used in his stories. The same as the "I, Robot" movie was with Asimov's stories.

Look at the page count in The Lord of the Rings. Then compare it to the page count in The Hobbit.

Now compare the run time of the movies. Either LoTR got butchered or The Hobbit was puffed up with standard Hollywood hero crap.

I'm skipping it because I do not want ANOTHER generic Hollywood cliche driven green-screen-spectacle-fest.

Comment: Re:Neither (Score 1, Insightful) 137

by martin-boundary (#47561909) Attached to: Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus?
Such sites SHOULD go away. Here's a hint for website operators: Either give your stuff away for free no strings attached (we do it all the time with open source software - which is way more complex to do than a website), or hide your content using a membership. Ads are pollution, and have zero value.

I, and many other people, don't appreciate the implicit bait and switch where we are being lured into accessing a "free" website, but oh wait you now have to look at ads and we'll track what you do etc. It's dishonest.

If you're going to make free content available to all, then make it truly free. No ads. You'll have lots of people interested in seeing it. It's also fine to have a profit motive, nobody's forcing you to give stuff away if you don't want to, but if that's what you want to do, don't pretend it's free. Except you'll have fewer page views.

Some website operators are greedy, they want the "free" page views and they want the income at the same time. That's evil. Luckily there are plenty of people like me, who have well paying day jobs, and have no problem whatsoever to give away free software to help ordinary people deal with and filter that shit out.

Comment: Re:Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza - Debunked (Score 1) 685

by Jeremiah Cornelius (#47561709) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

Israel's problem is that they have an ethno-centric, fascist state ideology - based on mythical stone tablets from a fairy story.

Israel's problem is that this ideology breeds a sociopathic self-righteousness - one that allows them to keep children walled into a cage, and then to bomb the cage, because of Israel's innate "tolerance" and because they are an "embattled victim".

If everyone on earth has rejected "you", for five centuries? Maybe the problem isn't "them"... But psychological subtlety has never been a strength of fascist ideology.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...