moviewatcher

This article is painful to read. The author clearly doesn't know how to use the comma/full-stop to introduce pauses in proper places. Take the first sentence:

> I have exchanged e-mails and been having chats with people about the new Amazon Product Results in the Ubuntu 12.10 Unity Dash one of those people I reached out to was Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation a visionary who I have much respect for after all he pioneered much of the foundation and principles that guide much of the Open Source Community.

There needs to be 1 full stop after "Dash" and some kind of punctuation before "after all".

> I guess it never dawned on me that Canonical might start getting requests for search data as a result of this new feature and there is no doubt that various governments are now aware this feature exists after all its been in the news for weeks.

Punctuation needed before "after all".

> Remember folks sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping or System Settings – Privacy and a click can remedy your concerns if you still have some!

Comma/colon required after "folks". "sudo apt-get ..." needs to be quoted.

These are the more "serious" things I noticed. There are other issues with punctuation that make this article difficult to read. If this were an essay written by me and submitted to my high school English teacher (as a foreign language), it would get a B-.

TLDR: Poor writing style.

so, traditionally, things that have been implemented in software, have then been implemented in hardware, to accelerate the process. Is this possible to do with raytracing?

Depending on what your requirements are, you may not need to support every outdated HTTP library in existence.

HTTP versioning is part of the HTTP protocol which is at the Application Layer in both the Internet Layer Model and the OSI Layer Model.

Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

I wanted to raise a point here, on the Internets (and I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but since I am a huge movie watcher [self-assessment based on large amounts of cash spent in theatres + Netflix], I will engage in this conversation anyway).

While some movies are transcendent, they are also highly subjective to their viewers tastes. As tastes change, so does the opinion of each generation and, thus, the ratings of those movies. As each generation disappears, why shouldn't the charts change, as that would be a reflection of the fact that each generation is different from the next one?

For example, I didn't think Star Wars was a great movie, even though I am a huge Sci-Fi fan! Most people would find this contradictory, but I can't argue with my tastes: I watched all of the episodes in 2009 and I said: "meh". Now, I am aware that at the time it had revolutionary graphics and it had a great impact on the film industry (which is why I dedicated the time to watch it in the first place). I can appreciate the impact it had in 1977, but in terms of absolute value it brought to me in 2009 - I can't justify the decision to vote for it as one of the top 10 best movies.

I noticed there is a strong bias coming from people who have watched Star Wars decades ago and only remember how awesome that movie made them feel at the time. I understand, I'm the same about the first 2 Terminator movies (since I'm in my late 20s) - there will always be a special place in my heart for them, but, realistically speaking, if I'd rewatch Terminator 1 or 2 right now, I wouldn't be as impressed with them as I was back then.

Obviously, it is unfair to compare movies from the 70s and 80s with the movies of today, but these charts do exactly this when they place The Godfather on 2nd place. Now the problem is that the placement suggests that Godfather 2 will be more enjoyable _today_ than The Avengers. Well, why should that be the case? My personal experience taught me otherwise.

Another example: the parent post mentions "I Love Lucy" as "the best TV comedy of all time", according to the critics. I'm constantly in search of good comedies and I watched the trailer to assess how much enjoyment I might get out it. I have to say - the IMDB trailer shows a primitive comedy and it didn't resonate with me, even though I'm not opposed to watching old comedies (Noises Off (1992) is one of my favorite "old" comedies). So I probably won't watch it, despite the fact that it was so highly acclaimed. Which then makes me wonder: how accurate are the ratings of the "critics"? If they're all in their 40s,50s and 60s (because it takes time to build a reputation as a critic), why would my generation listen to them and expect an accurate assessment of how enjoyable an old movie would be today ?

In conclusion, I'd like to suggest that maybe some movies naturally die out (in terms of rating) as a fact of life, just as old basketball players have to make room for new players, as they simply can't compete with the young ones. Perhaps there is a similar trend with movies, where modern technology coupled with a great plot simply creates a more immersive experience than old movies can, solely with their plot. If it is so, then we shouldn't disregard these charts just because "epic movie X from 100 years ago" ended up as #XXXXX.

Thanks for reading!

P.S.: Parent post should be Zimahl's "The problem with these rankings ... "