Darren New wrote:
> Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure I understand what a wind storm has to 
> do with whether the TV is broadcast in analog or digital. Was it shaking 
> the tower too much or something? Or did it knock down the digital 
> antenna? Was the problem at the arena or the broadcaster?

I assume the problem was at the antenna since multiple channels were 
effected, though I don't know where they were broadcast from so I can't 
be sure..  I'm also assuming that the storm actually had something to to 
with it, though it would be a surprisingly coincidence if it didn't. 
The wind was very strong (and also full of flying sand!), so I wouldn't 
be too surprised if it was able to jiggle or knock over an antenna.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:38:56 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

>   Somehow it feels that they went digital before the technology was  
> really
> ready for it. I wonder why is it. Whose interest does it serve (besides
> temporarily boosting digibox sales)?
>

Money, money, money, money, money. Free's up a whole chunk of the spectrum  
for sale to service providers who can use it to enhance our wireless lives.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:42:48 -0000, Bill Pragnell  
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:11:44 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> Plausible. But then, why not just manipulate the laws of physics so  
>>>> the
>>>> man goes flying without having to physically kick him? :-D (Or better
>>>> yet, make it so all the oxygen in the room mysteriously vanishes...)
>>>
>>>   It sounds plausible also with the overly long jumps: They just can't
>>> manipulate the system to transport them to the roof of the other  
>>> building.
>>> They have to trigger the physics simulation by making an actual jump,  
>>> and
>>> then just "nudge" it slightly to boost the jump.
>>  Thanks you know that always kind of bugged me, why jump from building  
>> to building when you could just 'tell' the Matrix that the co-ordinates  
>> that represent your position as here are really there. As previously  
>> mentioned the real answer is "Because it looks cooler to film", but as  
>> internal logic goes your position makes sense.
>
> The Matrix is not a film that can be rationally dissected IMO; it's all  
> utter nonsense from beginning to end (why use humans as batteries? even  
> if you do, why bother keeping their minds active with all that  
> complicated VR? leave them vegetative!), albeit very exciting and  
> stylish nonsense. When it comes to the extra abilities exhibited by the  
> 'free' humans in the Matrix, almost all explanations make a degree of  
> sense. What bothers me is how limited the Agents are. If they can dodge  
> bullets and hijack 'slaved' human avatars, it should be impossible to  
> land a punch or even see them coming...

The Agents are using the same 'code' as everyone else so they can only  
tweak it in the same way as the free humans. As for landing a punch, a  
slave human probably wouldn't be able to -

Slave Human accesses punch code
Agent sees code access, accesses tweaked dodge punch code
Slave Human misses as tweaked dodge interprets punch code correctly

Free Human accesses punch code - then tweaks it
Agent sees code access, accesses tweaked dodge punch code
Free Human hits Agent as tweaked dodge fails to interpret tweaked punch  
code correctly

> As for leaping buildings, I like to think that Morpheus and co simply  
> don't know how to tell the Matrix to teleport them. With some effort and  
> practice (and maybe augmenting their avatars prior to connection) they  
> can perform some highly nifty feats sometimes verging on the superhuman,  
> but only Neo with his more 'fundamental' mental connections with the  
> Matrix can do the truly superhuman. And even he can't teleport. Ha! What  
> a loser.
>
> :-)

On the teleportation front you're probably right, it's not a natural  
extension to human abilities so it's 'unsensable' to them. Though that  
would make the initial Smith/Neo merge and wall flexing strange.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> The Matrix is not a film that can be rationally dissected IMO; it's all 
>> utter nonsense from beginning to end
> 
>   I disagree. Most of the things have plausible explanations. A few of
> them might be far-fetched retconning, but they are still plausible.

Don't get me wrong; I rather like the Matrix, and I even enjoyed the 
almost universally-reviled sequels. Especially the second one.

My main problem really is that the 'big' explanations are hogwash. 
Mainly, the machines' dependence on humans - power is a ridiculous 
excuse, and even if you accept that there's still no need for the Matrix 
whatsoever. And why would the machines have been dependent on solar 
power? Just a slim excuse to provide a wrecked world as the future setting.

But once you get past those, I guess the rest of it does make a kind of 
sense. Although I dislike cliched plot devices like restricted 
exit/entry points and dying IRL if you get capped in the Matrix. And I 
still think the agents would be more deadly.  They can dodge bullets 
most of the time, but fists, only sometimes. This means most of the 
time, their reflexes are the same as humans, but only sometimes speed up 
to what they would actually be. Why? What's the point? Grrr. :-)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:07:30 -0000, Bill Pragnell  
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> The Matrix is not a film that can be rationally dissected IMO; it's  
>>> all utter nonsense from beginning to end
>>    I disagree. Most of the things have plausible explanations. A few of
>> them might be far-fetched retconning, but they are still plausible.
>
> Don't get me wrong; I rather like the Matrix, and I even enjoyed the  
> almost universally-reviled sequels. Especially the second one.
>
> My main problem really is that the 'big' explanations are hogwash.  
> Mainly, the machines' dependence on humans - power is a ridiculous  
> excuse, and even if you accept that there's still no need for the Matrix  
> whatsoever. And why would the machines have been dependent on solar  
> power? Just a slim excuse to provide a wrecked world as the future  
> setting.

Well yeah, I'm trying to remember the animations they dealt with it in  
more detail.

> But once you get past those, I guess the rest of it does make a kind of  
> sense. Although I dislike cliched plot devices like restricted  
> exit/entry points and dying IRL if you get capped in the Matrix. And I  
> still think the agents would be more deadly.  They can dodge bullets  
> most of the time, but fists, only sometimes. This means most of the  
> time, their reflexes are the same as humans, but only sometimes speed up  
> to what they would actually be. Why? What's the point? Grrr. :-)

Because the fists are tweaked physics code, but the bullets are standard  
physics code and thus trajectories can be predicted. It appears only Neo  
can alter the physics outside of his embodiment.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:24:39 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> I was in Las Vegas during a wind storm couple of months back, and they  
>> eventually had to switch the televisions in the sports betting area  
>> from digital (some sort of HDTV in this case) to analogue for exactly  
>> this reason.
>
> Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure I understand what a wind storm has to  
> do with whether the TV is broadcast in analog or digital. Was it shaking  
> the tower too much or something? Or did it knock down the digital  
> antenna? Was the problem at the arena or the broadcaster?

Depends what was causing the storm, or what the storm was composed of. You  
should see what happens to my picture when there's lightning on my LOS,  
hell even a 'noisey' vehicle going past can cause break-up because of my  
range.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> My main problem really is that the 'big' explanations are hogwash. 
> Mainly, the machines' dependence on humans - power is a ridiculous 
> excuse, and even if you accept that there's still no need for the Matrix 
> whatsoever. And why would the machines have been dependent on solar 
> power? Just a slim excuse to provide a wrecked world as the future setting.

  If 200 years ago you would have told someone that today we take sand and
build machines from it which can make calculations millions of times faster
than humans can, you would have been labeled a madman.

  Just because we can't imagine humans as sources of power now doesn't mean
that it wouldn't at least he *plausible* that maybe hundreds of years from
now machines invent a way to actually get enormous amounts of energy from
humans through a process we can't even imagine right now (exactly in the
same way as 200 years ago people couldn't even imagine the process by which
sand could be used to perform billions of calculations per second).

  Far-fetched? Maybe. Plausible? Yes.

> Although I dislike cliched plot devices like restricted 
> exit/entry points and dying IRL if you get capped in the Matrix.

  Well, their brain was directly connected to the Matrix after all.
It's plausible that the wrong feedback could kill the person connected
to it.

  As for the restricted entry points, they were, after all, hacking
themselves into the system in a way that they avoided detection. In other
words, they had to find security holes and backdoors.

> And I 
> still think the agents would be more deadly.  They can dodge bullets 
> most of the time, but fists, only sometimes.

  Different physics in play. It's plausible that an awakened firing a
gun can't control the bullet, which is 100% simulated by the Matrix,
and thus agents have full data about it. However, if they punch with
their fist, they can tamper with the physics routines of the Matrix and
the agents have hard time following. IOW, they can't predict where the
fist is going to be in the next 0.1 seconds while they can predict the
bullet because they have the full physics data related to it at their
disposal.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Just because we can't imagine humans as sources of power now doesn't mean
> that it wouldn't at least he *plausible* that maybe hundreds of years from
> now machines invent a way to actually get enormous amounts of energy from
> humans through a process we can't even imagine right now (exactly in the
> same way as 200 years ago people couldn't even imagine the process by which
> sand could be used to perform billions of calculations per second).

Hmmm. There's nothing particularly unique about humans. What about 
monkeys? What about bags of protein and water attached to chemical 
drips? What's the difference? And Morpheus says at one point how much 
*heat* energy a human body generates (in a practically obsolete unit). 
Your logic is stretched almost to breaking point by its generosity!

>   Far-fetched? Maybe. Plausible? Yes.

As far fetched -> infinity, plausibility -> 0.

>   Well, their brain was directly connected to the Matrix after all.
> It's plausible that the wrong feedback could kill the person connected
> to it.
Yah. Weak point, I admit. I was criticizing the coughing up blood etc 
more than the actual death.

>   As for the restricted entry points, they were, after all, hacking
> themselves into the system in a way that they avoided detection. In other
> words, they had to find security holes and backdoors.

Yup, fair enough.

>   Different physics in play. It's plausible that an awakened firing a
> gun can't control the bullet, which is 100% simulated by the Matrix,
> and thus agents have full data about it. However, if they punch with
> their fist, they can tamper with the physics routines of the Matrix and
> the agents have hard time following. IOW, they can't predict where the
> fist is going to be in the next 0.1 seconds while they can predict the
> bullet because they have the full physics data related to it at their
> disposal.

But how much faster can an Agent think compared to a human? If it's 
dodging the bullets, then it's not bound by the local physics because 
those physics will prohibit the sort of speed necessary to react and 
move (think whiplash, muscle damage). If it starts to move as the human 
pulls the trigger (in the same way, in theory, humans can also dodge 
bullets) then it has plenty of time to react to the human's slow 
movements. In that case, it has oodles of time to leisurely lean out of 
the way of a plodding fist. It doesn't need to know the physics of the 
flying fist, it can just amble out of the way, fine-tuning its movements 
as it goes.

Um, I've thought about this a bit too much, haven't I? :-)

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Hmmm. There's nothing particularly unique about humans.

  Except that there are billions of them.

> What about monkeys?

  Extint?

> >   Far-fetched? Maybe. Plausible? Yes.

> As far fetched -> infinity, plausibility -> 0.

  Not really.

> >   Well, their brain was directly connected to the Matrix after all.
> > It's plausible that the wrong feedback could kill the person connected
> > to it.
> Yah. Weak point, I admit. I was criticizing the coughing up blood etc 
> more than the actual death.

  The brain can cause lots of physical symptoms.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I seem to recall reading that operating frequency of the human brain is
> on the order of 40Hz.
>
> I wonder how long it would take a human brain to render POV-Ray...

In the cyberpunk classic Neuromancer, from which The Matrix drew/stole many of
its concepts and characters, there's this device, the simstim (simulated
stimulation) by which an AI begins talking to the main character.  The simstim
is used to broadcast some person's senses to other people, i.e. it functions
like a TV broadcast where "viewers" actually get into the "actors" shoes and
hear, see, smell and taste the same the "actor" experiences.  The AI uses it to
build a virtual world out of the memories of the character and talk to him, like
a controlled dream.  The thing is:  the resolution is decided by how much memory
is there to provide it.  At one moment the AI asks the character to look at the
palm of his hands, and he barely can make out the fine lines and rugged
details.  Still, it was far more vivid than the Matrix in the book, which was
full of geometric patterns from early 80's computer imagery...

I think the brain is well capable in this respect of rendering through memories.
:)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Hmmm. There's nothing particularly unique about humans.
> 
>   Except that there are billions of them.
> 
>> What about monkeys?
> 
>   Extint?

Bet they weren't before the machines took over. Anyway, I'm not saying 
it's demonstrably impossible, it's just very weak, and very obviously a 
poorly-thought-out backstory. The Wachowskis do not care whether it's 
plausible or not. The only explanations are desperate retrofitting.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:


> Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure I understand what a wind storm has to 
> do with whether the TV is broadcast in analog or digital. Was it shaking 
> the tower too much or something? Or did it knock down the digital 
> antenna? Was the problem at the arena or the broadcaster?

If it's a wind storm, and it's affecting the picture, it's likely they 
have "Big" satellite dishes, (possibly the little directTV ones, too... 
dunno) being buffeted by the wind, causing the signal quality to vary. 
Long ago, my family had a big dish, and moderate wind was enough to 
cause the analog signal to degrade momentarily. Do this with digital 
and, well.. you know what happens.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I recently was at a home where they were watching TV and I got to watch
> it from really close. I was shocked at the bad quality of the image! It was
> full of mpeg compression artifacts. It was almost like watching a youtube
> video in full-screen.

This is a big problem with our cable system. They cram so much 
interactive on-demand garbage down the pipe that normal channels tend to 
suffer, due to decreased bandwidth. I've had several instances where 
certain movies are unwatchable because the scenes are dark, and have a 
lot of movement, which causes the image to break up into random chunks 
of barely discernible murk.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I've had several instances where 
> certain movies are unwatchable because the scenes are dark, and have a 
> lot of movement, which causes the image to break up into random chunks 
> of barely discernible murk.

  Welcome to the future.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> I've had several instances where 
> certain movies are unwatchable because the scenes are dark, and have a 
> lot of movement, which causes the image to break up into random chunks 
> of barely discernible murk.

Apparently I don't watch as much TV, or my TV set is just so crappy I 
can't tell the difference... None of the things everybody else is 
describing are familiar to me.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> 
>   Welcome to the future.
> 

Where's my flying car?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:

> Apparently I don't watch as much TV, or my TV set is just so crappy I 
> can't tell the difference... None of the things everybody else is 
> describing are familiar to me.

Do you use digital cable (satellite) tv, or digital over the air 
broadcasts? I'm seeing it on the CATV a lot here, especially for the 
secondary and tertiary premium channels (primary, and primary HD look 
acceptable)

FWIW, compression artifacts on digital OTA usually aren't that bad, save 
for the 2 idiot stations that have 3 streams in addition to their main 
broadcast. (Do we really need a Forecast channel, a Radar channel, and 
an airport camera?)

Yeah, I have an HDTV which magnifies compression artifacts as well as 
the problems with analog TV.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   Welcome to the future.
> > 

> Where's my flying car?

  Right next to the 1000000x1000000x1000000 pixel holographic display.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Welcome to the future.
> Where's my flying car?

They said there'd be flying cars!  I WANT MY FLYING CAR!

www.moller.com  <- over there.

The three biggest problems with flying cars are thus:
- noise
- disaster handling
- traffic flow logistics

Noise wouldn't be a problem if we had some nice antigrav field, 
passenger aircraft will always have more issues than land vehicles when 
something goes wrong, and once good anti-collision routines exist, the 
rest is whether or not the red tape will allow Joe Schmoe to just pick 
up and run around the sky from his driveway.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>
>>   Welcome to the future.
>>
> 
> Where's my flying car?

I got mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9HhktCTMNY

Post a reply to this message

Tom Galvin wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9HhktCTMNY

I was thinking more "Jetsons" than "Flintstones" though XD

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I clearly remember how they advertised digital TV as increasing the
> image quality compared to analog broadcasts. BS.

One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.

I don't seem to have dented CD sales yet, but I'm trying.*

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

*BTW, I recently heard a salesperson in a car audio store describing HD 
Radio as "making AM sound as good as FM, and FM sound as good as a CD!"

I find it sad that so few people realize that CDs have such low quality 
sound...

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> If every violation of physics made me hate a movie, I wouldn't watch any,
> ever

Some are worse than others, but in general I know what you mean :)

One of my favorites is from "The Core"... the main guy toasts a peach 
with a can of hairspray and a lighter, and says "This is the earth 
without its electromagnetic field"...

Despite that, I enjoyed the movie :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> The Matrix is not a film that can be rationally dissected IMO; it's all 
> utter nonsense from beginning to end (why use humans as batteries? even 
> if you do, why bother keeping their minds active with all that 
> complicated VR? leave them vegetative!),

http://www.wylfing.net/essays/

Supposedly written between the second and third films; if so, the 
analysis is very well done and thoroughly explains some of the apparent 
inconsistencies such as the human battery thing.

If, OTOH, it was written after the third movie came out, than it's just 
a matter of seeing what you're looking for.

I don't know which it is, since I only found it a few months ago.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> But once you get past those, I guess the rest of it does make a kind of 
> sense. Although I dislike cliched plot devices like restricted 
> exit/entry points and dying IRL if you get capped in the Matrix. And I 
> still think the agents would be more deadly.  They can dodge bullets 
> most of the time, but fists, only sometimes. This means most of the 
> time, their reflexes are the same as humans, but only sometimes speed up 
> to what they would actually be. Why? What's the point? Grrr. :-)

You think that just because they're machines, their logic is perfect? 
Grr, those machines were originally programmed by people... maybe even 
by Microsoft.  Why can't they have bugs?

Even if they have been programmed by machines for several generations 
now (machines making machines that make machines, etc), they'll still 
probably have bugs in them.  Their reflexes matching the incoming threat 
is probably one of those (or a misapplication of an optimization or 
something).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.

  The problem with analog sound/video is that it's very difficult, if not
impossible, to transfer the data without any modification. There will always
be some noise which was not in the original material.

  Digital audio/video can be used to transfer the information unmodified.
You just need to have enough bitrate in an non-lossy format for it to
easily become of much higher quality than the analog equivalent (because
there's no noise).

  The problem with CDs, although they are lossless, is that the bitrate is
not high enough to rival the quality of a very high-quality analog tape
(those used in the past for studio sound recording). You would need at
least 24-bit 96 kHz sound for that.

  And the major problem with DVDs and especially digi-TV is that it's lossy
and with a rather low bitrate, and thus cannot compete with an analog
broadcast with good reception. Lossless HDTV could, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.

It isn't impossible; you don't even need to duplicate the exact shape of 
a sine wave to reach a quality level accomplished by common analog 
sources.  It just needs to be close enough that the *human ear* can't 
detect the difference.  Just because most digital recordings cut corners 
to reduce costs doesn't mean that it's an inherent quality of the 
medium; the other thread about hating DVD as a medium isn't about hating 
DVD as a medium, it's about hating the way it's *commercially used*, not 
using it to anywhere near the level it could be.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
476b7880$1@news.povray.org...

> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.

But isn't that theoretical and only true for high-end analog hardware?
Before digital, most people had low-end analog devices that produced crappy 
and noisy output. My VCR, TV, record player and film camera sure did. As far 
as I'm concerned, their digital versions are a massive improvement, 
quality-wise.
While audiophiles, videophiles or film camera addicts can truly claim that 
their (costly) analog system is better than its digital counterpart, it 
doesn't mean that it's true for the rest of us, so the theoretical benefits 
of analog technologies are a moot point.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> http://www.wylfing.net/essays/

  I think those essays about the two latter movies of the trilogy are
really insightful.

  Some people might consider them retrofitting, but I find that doubtful.
I believe that the original script writers had to had at least some of the
same ideas as noted by those essays. For some reason (most probably very
purposefully) they chose to not to deliver the deep symbolism and allegories
readily ruminated on a silver plate to the viewers, but left much of it to
be deduced.

  I think that's one aspect of the Matrix trilogy that sets it apart from
your typical Hollywood movie: It doesn't explain everything in simple terms
for anyone to understand, but leaves much for the viewer to think about and
to try to deduce using (sometimes obscure) clues. No wonder so many people
hate it, because they don't "get it" and they are not accustomed to having
to think so much about a Hollywood blockbuster.

  (Of course part of the hatred is caused by false expectations after seeing
the first movie: Many people formed their own opinions and expectations of
how the trilogy should continue, and when it, quite naturally, didn't go as
they expected, they hated it.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Tom Galvin wrote:
> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9HhktCTMNY
> 
> I was thinking more "Jetsons" than "Flintstones" though XD

Fred is flying, while George is grounded.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > http://www.wylfing.net/essays/

>   I think those essays about the two latter movies of the trilogy are
> really insightful.

  After reading those essays, using mostly ideas from it, I imagined a
possible history as established by the Matrix trilogy. Much of it has
quite strong philosophical and spiritual tones, like the movies (and the
essays) have.

  At an unspecified time a powerful machine gains consciousness, awareness
of itself. After numerous events a war between humans and machines erupts.
Humans try to destroy the machines, but they fail. The machines win.

  Consciousness and self-awareness is not without its side-effects on the
machines. They realize that humans have something machines do not. Humanity
can grow, move forward, slowly "ascend" to a higher level of consciousness,
spirituality so to speak. This "growth" is not only about technology and
knowledge, it's something more. The machines, which are soulless immortal
beings, cannot comprehend what it is. They realize, however, that they are
doomed to stagnation, to live an eternity of meaningless existence, if they
cannot move forward, if they cannot grow. They want what humans have and
what machines don't have. In philosophical and spiritual terms, they want
a soul, but they don't understand it.

  While some machines disagree and would be just fine with static stagnation,
the "boss" machines decide that they want to tap into this mysterious "soul"
humans have ("bioenergy" they call it). Part of this "energy" seems to be
formed of emotions (again something which machines can describe but cannot
really comprehend). In order to tap into this source of mysterious energy
they need the humans to live and feel and have emotions, which cannot happen
if they are mere prisoners. Of course letting people just go and live is
not an option, for they would just rebel again, and it would also be quite
harder to tap into them.

  So they create this virtual world called the Matrix where humans can live
normal lives for all they know, without knowing about the machines or the
real state of the world.

  The Architect is created to design this world. The Oracle is created to
study humans and their behavior and to try to understand what is it that
they have, what is it that allows them to grow.

  The Architect, as a virtually perfect machine, cannot comprehend humanity.
To the Architect everything must be logical, predictable, controlled and,
ultimately, static.

  Since the reason to create the Matrix in the first place is to allow
humans to live normal lives, he does a perfect job at designing it: The
simulated world is a perfect utopia where everything is just perfect,
where people can live perfect lives and nobody has any problems.

  After an unspeficied amount of time (decades, perhaps centuries), the
experiment just fails. People just start dying regardless of this perfect
utopia. The Architect deduces, probably with the aid of the Oracle, that
something inherent to human beings, something inherent to the human "soul",
cannot stand perfection, that there's something in perfection that stops
humanity from growing, that humanity needs imperfection, suffering and
grief as part of the growing process. Total perfection means stagnation,
it means that humanity will be static and will never move forward.

  So the Architect designs a new version of the Matrix which is the total
opposite of the previous version: The new version is a dystopia, full of
imperfections, suffering and pain. This dystopia has, among other things,
monsters like werewolves and vampires, as mentioned in the movies.

  This version fails too.

  The Oracle, who has now been studying human nature, probably for several
centuries, has gained deep insight into the reasons. The ultimate problem
seems to be the total lack of freedom of will, the total lack of choice.
Giving the illusion of choice in a virtual reality is not true choice,
giving the illusion of freedom of will is not the same thing as freedom
of will. There's something inherent to the human "soul" that needs true
freedom, needs true capacity for choice. Simulated illusions are not
enough. The human "soul" rebels against such an artificial life using the
only mean it can: By dying. (People don't die because they want to die,
it's not a conscious act, but something inherent in their "soul" just
cannot stand stagnation and lack of freedom, and just dies.)

  So the Architect, with the help of the Oracle, designs a third version
of the Matrix, the one seen in the movies. It's not an utopia nor a
dystopia, but something in between. There are imperfections and suffering,
but there are also good things. But most importantly, true freedom of
choice (not just simulated one) is offered. Some people can be given the
option to "take the red pill" and make a true choice. They can truely rebel
and set themselves free. They can truely opt to disobey, to not to be told
what to do and how to live their lives.

  In other words, the Architect deliberately designs holes into the system
which can be abused to actually escape the Matrix. Any human who comes to
the realization that something is wrong, can be given the true choice of
escaping, the true choice of rebelling against the system.

  This system ultimately causes the creation of (the first version of)
"The One", which is some kind of culmination of humanity's freedom of
choice, humanity's will to be independent and to survive and grow. It's not
clear whether the Architect knew about this possibility and just allowed
it to happen or whether it was a surprise to him, but the Oracle most
probably knew this outcome when she helped designing this third version
of the Matrix, and most probably she wanted this to happen because she
was gaining a lot of insight into humanity and what is it that makes it
grow, and she wanted to let humanity do that.

  "The One" is a human with a higher level of consciousness (whatever
that may mean). The first "One" was just an anomality in the system,
and eventually his knowledge was simply reintegrated into the system.
Eventually a second "One" was born, and a third and so on, probably each
one more powerful than the previous ones. The sixth "One" is the one we
see in the movies. The sixth "One" was different from the previous ones,
and ultimately caused a revolution which changed the relationship between
humans and machines, and a fourth, better version, of the Matrix to be
designed, with a lot more freedom of choice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
>> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.
> 
>   The problem with analog sound/video is that it's very difficult, if not
> impossible, to transfer the data without any modification. There will always
> be some noise which was not in the original material.
> 
>   Digital audio/video can be used to transfer the information unmodified.
> You just need to have enough bitrate in an non-lossy format for it to
> easily become of much higher quality than the analog equivalent 

Warp, you *do* realize what server we're posting on?  And that everyone 
here most likely already knows this? :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 476b7880$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
>> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.
> 
> But isn't that theoretical and only true for high-end analog hardware?

Of course it's a theoretical superiority, and its easy enough to choose 
a quality level that will exceed human ability to detect error. 
However, it seems that noone actually uses such high quality settings.

I'm OK with DVD and its replacements, in terms of quality.  My 
particular beef is with CDs.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I think that's one aspect of the Matrix trilogy that sets it apart from
> your typical Hollywood movie: It doesn't explain everything in simple terms
> for anyone to understand, but leaves much for the viewer to think about and
> to try to deduce using (sometimes obscure) clues. No wonder so many people
> hate it, because they don't "get it" and they are not accustomed to having
> to think so much about a Hollywood blockbuster.

I agree, with one caveat: namely, that using symbols to convey meaning 
is pointless if the symbols are unfamiliar to the audience, as the 
meaning will be lost.

The Matrix movies are full of symbols, as these essays show.  However, 
many of them are obscure, and so their meaning is wasted.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>   Of course a different question is that the entire 
>> humans-used-for-energy
>> is completely implausible because humans are poor batteries, and there
>> certainly are much efficient ways to convert natural resources to energy.
>> That's the reason why many fans decide to ignore that explanation and 
>> retcon
>> it so that the people are actually used for computing power, not as 
>> energy
>> sources. (Of course this also is an implausible explanation because it's,
>> once again, not a very energy-efficient way of getting computing 
>> power...)
> 
> Maybe the 'power' being extracted isn't electrical or purely 
> computative; imagination is something computers are traditionally bad at 
> that one would assume if it could somehow be harnessed, humans are 
> convenient sources thereof.  *shrug*

Maybe Morpheus was just wrong?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> I wonder how long it would take a human brain to render POV-Ray...

My brain can render photorealistic animations in real-time.  Now, if I 
could work out some kind of display for it... :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   I clearly remember how they advertised digital TV as increasing the
>> image quality compared to analog broadcasts. BS.
> 
> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.
> 

Define impossible. ;)

The relevant concept here is the signal to disturbance ratio. An AD 
converter theoretically* adds noise with a RMS value of 1/sqrt(12) the 
level of 1 bit. Take Warp's 24 bit converter. Assuming an input level of 
+- 1 V the noise added by the AD conversion process is about 34nV RMS. 
In order for an analog system to rival that it should add less than 
that. Take again Warp's 96 kHz sampler, if correctly designed that will 
have a bandwidth of about 25-30 kHz, any resistor in the amplifier that 
is larger than 4 Ohm will add a thermal noise that exceeds the 
specification. In short, IMHO it is not impossible and 24 bit is overkill.

* Assuming it meets the specification of linearity and no missing codes. 
I still have to meet one that does. *And* assuming the internal analog 
components are better than that 34nV.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> > Maybe the 'power' being extracted isn't electrical or purely
> > computative; imagination is something computers are traditionally bad at
> > that one would assume if it could somehow be harnessed, humans are
> > convenient sources thereof.  *shrug*
>
> Maybe Morpheus was just wrong?

yes, that's the problem with trying to understand what goes on God's mind... he
assumed that was the real purpose and that purpose is the one spread through
the 3 movies by the authors and accepted by the audience.  The essays are
really insightful, but just speculation.  As the authors put it in the moviews,
the plot is a lot less grandiloquent...

Post a reply to this message

The essays inspired me to rent and watch the entire trilogy once again.

  Man, I don't know what is it with this trilogy, but each time I watch it
I like it more. Each time I get something from it I didn't get the previous
times.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> The essays inspired me to rent and watch the entire trilogy once again.

this is offtopic, but is there any point in renting something you really like?
You probably already lost more money in renting the DVDs than buying them...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> this is offtopic, but is there any point in renting something you really like?
> You probably already lost more money in renting the DVDs than buying them...

  Well, the first time you rent it, it's much cheaper, so it's obvious.

  The second time you rent it, it's still cheaper, regardless of how much
the rent fee actually is. You have *already* speng the first rent free.
You can't get it back. If you were to now buy the movies it would cost
you the price of the movies plus the one rent fee. Two rent fees is cheaper
than that.

  Follow the same pattern ad infinitum.

  Of course the amount of money spent in renting fees quickly become
larger than the price of buying the movies, but you would have had to
known this before you rented it.

  It would have, of course, been cheaper to buy the movies the first
time, but how would have I known?-)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   Well, the first time you rent it, it's much cheaper, so it's obvious.

Or loan from a friend ;). Or get it for christmas ;).

>   Of course the amount of money spent in renting fees quickly become
> larger than the price of buying the movies, but you would have had to
> known this before you rented it.

True. Alltough if I want to see a movie again, it's probably so good
that I wanna buy it.

>   It would have, of course, been cheaper to buy the movies the first
> time, but how would have I known?-)

You can buy a DVD, watch it and sell it, if you didn't like it. And if
you manage to sell it for some stupido (or a freak, if the movie is some
very-rare-version), you can get along spending less money than renting
on the first run.

And if selling is not worth to do the job it has (badly said imo, true,
but I guess you'll get it), once-watched movies can be used as presents
to other people - and they still usually look good on the shelf ;).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
  >   Man, I don't know what is it with this trilogy, but each time I 
watch it
> I like it more. Each time I get something from it I didn't get the previous
> times.
> 

That's really the mark of *any* good literature (read "story in any 
format whatsoever"), isn't it?  Damn, after (I hate to say how many) 
decades, I'm still getting new stuff out of Tolkien and Heinlein and 
even stuffy old Shakespeare...

...AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SO COOL....  ;)  ;)  ;)

--Sherry "Oh, I'm So Freakin' Old, But I Ain't Dead Yet" Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 
> My brain can render photorealistic animations in real-time.  Now, if I 
> could work out some kind of display for it... :)
> 

One of my personal Most Scary Moments was when I realized I could 
visualize a tesseract...The trick is, to get all the dimensions in view, 
you have to incorporate a fourth dimension, which means time, which 
means you have to make it *rotate*...light goes sliding around all those 
funky angles...blinding headache ensues...Damn, can't write about it 
without clapping hand to forehead and shouting "Stop it!  Stop it!  Stop 
it!"

--Sherry "Ah, But It's Still Cool No Matter How Much It Hurts" Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:35:33 -0600, Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>even stuffy old Shakespeare...

Stuffy! We could fall out, young lady. :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sherry Shaw wrote:
> That's really the mark of *any* good literature (read "story in any 
> format whatsoever"), isn't it?  Damn, after (I hate to say how many) 
> decades, I'm still getting new stuff out of Tolkien and Heinlein and 
> even stuffy old Shakespeare...

Don't know if I'm th eonly one this happened to, but the movies ruined 
LotR for me.  I used to love those books, and I read them once a year... 
  Now, I can't read them without thinking of the movies.  And, although 
the movies are good, they're nowhere near the quality of the books, so 
thinking of them makes me not want to read the books anymore :(

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:16:57 -0800, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>
>Don't know if I'm th eonly one this happened to, but the movies ruined 
>LotR for me.  I used to love those books, and I read them once a year... 

It was National Lampoon's Bored of the Rings that ruined LotR for me. I could
never take it seriously after reading it.

"For Elfin Kind" said Legolam, raising his sword.
"For the Dwarf Kingdoms" said Gimlet, son of Groin.
"For Mankind" said Arrowroot.
"I got to go poo poo" said Dildo Bugger.

Sad, I know but I can't get it out of my mind even after thirty years.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Don't know if I'm th eonly one this happened to, but the movies ruined
> LotR for me.  I used to love those books, and I read them once a year...
>   Now, I can't read them without thinking of the movies.  And, although
> the movies are good, they're nowhere near the quality of the books, so
> thinking of them makes me not want to read the books anymore :(

That's right. The movies were good, but they couldn't reach the books.
But I am very disappointed of new editions of the books. The "translation" into
"nowadays language" kills a lot.
I only got the first part from 1975, the other ones are new and IMHO quite
another style.
But in the movie that loooooooong journey of Sam and Frodo wasn't that loooooong
and boring as it was in the book. I'd took the book away and read it again two
weeks later. (Too dry, too much time without action, colors, etc.)

bluetree

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
>  
> It was National Lampoon's Bored of the Rings that ruined LotR for me.
> 

Oh, I LOVED Bored of the Rings!


* Either Arglebargle IV or somebody else.


...or words to that effect.  The only thing better than footnotes is 
footnote parody.

But I guess it's just a matter of taste.  Satire always improves the 
flavor for me, but I'm kind of a pie-throwing anarchist.  (Rather like a 
bomb-throwing anarchist, but less bloodthirsty.)

Silly recollection:  I recall, back in the mid-Jurassic, this girl said 
(to a rather geeky group), "Oh, I read Bored of the Rings and it was 
just, like, boring."

I said, "...You've read Lord of the Rings, right?"

She said, "Nooooo......."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never underestimate the power of human idiocy.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:09:54 -0600, Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>
>Oh, I LOVED Bored of the Rings!

I do like a bit of satyr-ing  myself but I think that I'm more of a pun-throwing
anarchist
I did like Bored of the rings


Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message