That sort of thing was a mostly 90's to mid 00's style
You're saying the "big eyes" thing has gone out of fashion? Seriously?
Japan is with moe, deal with it
I don't care, I always rated Curly and Larry more highly.
FWIW, the more you look at that picture, the less cute- if it ever was to start off with- and more downright creepy and weird (if not alien) it starts to look.
While that particular image isn't an example, I've mentioned elsewhere that a lot of manga and anime drawings- and especially those seemingly aimed at the fanservice/soft porn market proves (IMHO) that the "big eyes = cute" thing does have its limits when they push it too far, and the eyes start to look less cute and more just downright wrong- taking up most of the width of the face- to the extent that in some cases they start looking more reminiscent of flies' oversized eyes.
Which isn't cute at all. Well, not for me- but if the Internet has shown us one thing, it's that virtually anything has people with a fetish for it...
It wasn't for general use
I appreciate that by the late 80s, this wouldn't have been the case- that's why it probably wouldn't have occurred to me to buy it even if it was on sale alongside its faster brethren in mainstream shops like Boots.
But I assume that in earlier years- when colour films were generally quite slow- this would have been considered a more mainstream speed. (Wikipedia confirms that up until the early 60s, all versions of Kodachrome were ISO 10 to 16!)
I was under the impression that Ektachrome was more popular for portrait and fashion photography- at least by the late 1980s- due to its subdued neutrality...?
Ektachrome was developed in response to calls for higher speeds than Kodachrome's ISO 25 (that's why Kodachrome was the film of sunny days) at the expense of grain.
One other thing- by the late 1980s, Kodachrome *was* available in faster speeds- specifically ISO 64 and 200- in addition to the ISO 25.
Matter of fact, the times I did buy Kodachrome back then it was only ever the 64 or 200. Can't remember if the 25 was widely available, since I don't think it would have occurred to me to buy something that slow for general use.
You can filter for items with Amazon Prime shipping. Those are usually Amazon itself or equivalent quality resellers.
So, in short, it's approximately doable, but you have to play silly buggers to work around a lack of search functionality that Amazon could- and should- have provided?
Not a criticism of you personally, but doesn't really make the case in Amazon's favour if you ask me.
There's way, way too much fake merchandise on Amazon. I'm at the point where I won't buy anything unless it says it's sold by Amazon.
I know that Amazon are apparently binning different third party suppliers' stock together. That in itself means that goods sold by those companies but "fulfilled by Amazon" are completely untrustworthy, regardless of supplier. The obvious reason being that regardless who you (nominally) buy them from, you'll have no idea which third party the stock *actually* used to fulfil the order belonged to. Given Amazon's growing notoriety for blatant counterfeiting amongst third party suppliers, this obviously makes "fulfilled by Amazon" worthless if you're at all concerned by fakes or quality.
This- ironically- means it makes more sense to buy from suppliers who *don't* "fulfil by Amazon".
What concerns me are rumours that Amazon are even binning "their" goods (i.e. those "sold by Amazon") with these third-party-supplied items. In which case you could think you're buying something sourced and sold by Amazon *themselves*, but still end up with something supplied by the same random, utterly untrustworthy third party!
I have to admit that despite having been trying to reduce the amount of things I've bought on Amazon for several years now, since their dubious tax and employment practices came to light- I had to admit that I've still bought from them on occasion- not least because they *are* (or were) good at what they do. Convenient and reliable.
However, with the increasing level of nonsense like the above, even that appears to be going down the tubes. It's enough of a PITA to differentiate who you're buying from- which may well be their intent anyway- but the nonsense with Prime seems like it has the potential to really start playing silly buggers with their own service.
I was seriously pissed off on principle when I first saw goods- which had previously been on general sale- described as being "for Prime customers only". They went back to normal a day or two later, but this aggressive and (apparently) coercive behaviour into pushing people into paying for Prime really pissed me off.
By all means, sell the goods cheaper to people who (admittedly) have forked out £100 (or whatever) for Prime- and be open about that- but you can shove your weasellish "we're big enough to get away with this" arrogant coercion.
And no, I don't give a flying f*** about the incongruously bundled video service including that expensive show you produced with that hasn't-been-funny-in-fifteen-years right wing bellend Clarkson (never watched a whole episode of the "new" Top Gear since it launched in 2003); having that w****r and his chums plastered all over the site makes me less likely to sign up for your s****y service, particular as- by all accounts- the rest of the Prime video offerings are second rate tat designed to get you to pay for the non-free ones.
I've been using Amazon since late 1998, literally just months after they took over bookpages.co.uk (and probably just a few weeks after they actually started trading as Amazon.co.uk). I remember being quite pleased at what I saved on the oversized Windows 98 book I bought then, but to be honest, a lot of the other stuff wasn't that massively cheaper in the early days. However, it had a wide selection and was very reliable. Until recently, that was still mostly the case if you knew what you were doing.
Now, if- as some are suggesting- Amazon are stooping to cancelling "free shipping" orders because the goods became "Prime only" and cheaper in the intervening time... well, along with the other Prime b******t and the risk of receiving counterfeit goods from third parties and even Amazon themselves, it really smacks of a company that's becoming too big for its boots.
No reason to redraw the background for the same location, no reason to redraw Superhero guy, when you already have a library of him in 500 different poses.
Up to a point; I guess if you're not careful you could end up with the print equivalent of 70s and 80s Saturday morning kids' cartoons that relied on stock animation that became just a little too visibly familiar.
Apple has completely stagnated under Tim Cook. What have we got since Steve? Bluetooth headphones and touch bar.
Apple Pay, Watch, TV, several versions of Macs, several versions of iPhones and iPads, better displays, faster SSDs, free upgrades of iOS and OSX/macOS
Apple Pay - Well, let's give that a chance, but it hasn't revolutionised the world yet.
Apple Watch - Whatever its performance in absolute financial terms- or even relative to the pre-existing wearables market- by the standards and expectations Apple clearly had at its launch, this has been an obvious flop so far. I know it has a significant percentage of the smartwatch market, but a significant percentage of bugger all is still bugger all. No-one cares.
Apple TV - Seriously? That's been around in various forms for approaching a decade now (since before Jobs' death) and it's never set the world on fire.
"Several versions of Macs" - Er... so what?! That's what computer companies are *expected* to do! (Shades of Chris Rock's infamous routine here). It'd have been pretty damning if they *hadn't* released any new Macs since 2011! Says nothing about whether the changes are good, revolutionary, inspiring or not. And the latest MacBook Pro- released a considerable time after the last major revision- has had a lot of criticism for its "Air-ified", non-upgradeable, non-replaceable battery design. In fact, I get the impression there are a lot of professional Mac users for whom this is the last straw.
"Several versions of iPhones and iPads" - Utterly ditto. Apple's modus operandi is releasing new versions and deprecating old ones- the question is whether they've continued to be revolutionary when they do this.
"Better displays" - The retina displays are nice, I'll admit, and AFAIK were involved in developing those, so I'll credit them that far. Not revolutionary, though.
"Faster SSDs" - I'd expect that from *any* computer manufacturer using third-party SSD technology. So what? If there's a revolution there, it's not Apple's making.
"Free upgrades of iOS and OSX/macOS" - Nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly revolutionary in itself, is it?
Honestly, I think you've made the original poster's case for them. There's nothing there that's taken off in a truly revolutionary manner.
Maybe he's like me. Never really was a star wars fan.
I wasn't talking about you, then. I was talking about Star Wars fans who- one might have expected- would have felt at least some warmth towards Fisher due to her involvement in something they loved, but instead responded as if she was little more than the means to an effect that could be reproduced so her death didn't matter.
This was only a relatively small proportion of fans, though.
Joking about it as is clearly the case here is a coping mechanism for most.
Honestly, perhaps some were, but I'm really not convinced that all the comments along these lines were supposed to be satirical jokes.
(On a side-issue, while it doesn't apply so much in this case anyway, the "joking is a coping mechanism" thing is hauled out far too often. It's legitimate when applied to people actually going through personal stress, or people who deal with death as part of their jobs- but it's also been hijacked by random people in online forums with no real personal involvement clearly using it as little more than self-justification for being assholes. No, you're not paramedics dealing with dead children every day, you're just a vaguely sociopathic dicks posting crap on random web sites).
Either that or were in big trouble as it seems the world is full of psychopaths.
As I said- and to be fair- the majority of fans *weren't* responding in this manner- it's just that there were more than a few that did.
If a hundred million people have entertainment as 10% of their lives, and Star Wars as 0.01% of that entertainment - and if Carrie Fisher is 10% of Star Wars - then Carrie-Fisher-the-part-of-Star-Wars is a hundred times as important as Carrie-Fisher-the-person.
This is the kind of bizarre pseudo-logical rationalisation that gives geeks a bad name.
I wish I had that much affect on that many people, and that much of a legacy to leave when my body passes away.
That's okay; I wasn't criticising those who viewed the loss of Fisher primarily as the actress who played Leia- they (and you) are still remembering her as a person.
It's the people whose first response was to not be bothered that she had died, purely because she- or rather, Leia- could be "recreated" via CGI. People who apparently loved Star Wars, but didn't seem even to have a touch of humanity that a person associated with something they were so into had died, as long as the fictional Leia could be CGIed. That's a bit detached and cold. (And no, I'm not sure that they *were* all joking or making a point about reconstructing dead actors).
"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault