It's funny that this comes up, since the 9 years education I mentioned in another thread here was in philosophy.
Honestly, idle speculation aside, is there any serious reason for thinking that other people ... who act pretty much exactly like you ... experience things radically different from you? Sure, it's always possible, but this type of "possibilty" ... mere possibility ... is not really of interest to anyone but the clinically insane. Lots of things not worth considering for a moment are possible in this empty sense.
I see that Descartes has been mentioned, but what many people fail to mention and/or notice with Descartes is that the first part of his inquiry ... the destructive part that leads to the possibility of solipsism ... is based on a methodological principle that he is using only for the purpose of his inquiry. He isn't asserting that 100% certainty is a principle we should be following in everyday life. You essentially cannot get a plausible version of skepticism going without assuming some truly outdated and ridiculously false version of empiricism.
I would echo other people's sentiments. I have 9 years of university education in a field I no longer have anything to do with. I have a job I don't particularly like very much, but my life is not my job. I work in order to get the money to do what interests me in my spare time. It's become my feeling that you shouldn't do something you enjoy for a living because once you do it for money, you start enjoying it less and less.
This seems like a Strawman argument to me. Does anyone really think Widescreen is inherently better? How could any particular aspect ratio be inherently better?
Hello,
I'm new, and I thought I would chime in with some additional info.
When buying DVD's and the like, Widescreen is not always better. In fact, neither Widescreen or Fullscreen are "better" in any sense, what's important is that you view the film in the format it was intended to be viewed.
This DVD is a good example of a film that shouldn't be presented Widescreen on DVD. If you scroll down to the Product Information, you'll see that the Aspect Ratio is 1.85:1.
Ok, now look here and you'll see that this movie was shot in a fullscreen aspect ration, intended to be matted to 1.66:1. In order to give you a Widescreen DVD, the manufacturer has, in fact, matted over parts of the image.
It's funny that this comes up, since the 9 years education I mentioned in another thread here was in philosophy. Honestly, idle speculation aside, is there any serious reason for thinking that other people ... who act pretty much exactly like you ... experience things radically different from you? Sure, it's always possible, but this type of "possibilty" ... mere possibility ... is not really of interest to anyone but the clinically insane. Lots of things not worth considering for a moment are possible in this empty sense. I see that Descartes has been mentioned, but what many people fail to mention and/or notice with Descartes is that the first part of his inquiry ... the destructive part that leads to the possibility of solipsism ... is based on a methodological principle that he is using only for the purpose of his inquiry. He isn't asserting that 100% certainty is a principle we should be following in everyday life. You essentially cannot get a plausible version of skepticism going without assuming some truly outdated and ridiculously false version of empiricism.
posted by ArchStanton 18 years ago
In "Curious George: What should I do in life?"
I would echo other people's sentiments. I have 9 years of university education in a field I no longer have anything to do with. I have a job I don't particularly like very much, but my life is not my job. I work in order to get the money to do what interests me in my spare time. It's become my feeling that you shouldn't do something you enjoy for a living because once you do it for money, you start enjoying it less and less.
posted by ArchStanton 18 years ago
In "Curious George: Articles on Widescreen Vs Fullscreen"
It's not the wrong aspect ratio, the projectionist has just not applied the matte correctly. It's too low if you can see boom mikes and such.
posted by ArchStanton 18 years ago
This seems like a Strawman argument to me. Does anyone really think Widescreen is inherently better? How could any particular aspect ratio be inherently better?
posted by ArchStanton 18 years ago
Hello, I'm new, and I thought I would chime in with some additional info. When buying DVD's and the like, Widescreen is not always better. In fact, neither Widescreen or Fullscreen are "better" in any sense, what's important is that you view the film in the format it was intended to be viewed. This DVD is a good example of a film that shouldn't be presented Widescreen on DVD. If you scroll down to the Product Information, you'll see that the Aspect Ratio is 1.85:1. Ok, now look here and you'll see that this movie was shot in a fullscreen aspect ration, intended to be matted to 1.66:1. In order to give you a Widescreen DVD, the manufacturer has, in fact, matted over parts of the image.
posted by ArchStanton 18 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)