Absolutely gorgeous and like everything else I’ve owned from them it will probably break if I so much as look at it crosseyed. Still this one is actually cheap enough that I might buy it anyway.
Didn't know about this company and glad to learn about them! I was actually looking for something exactly like their PO16 recently and had some PCBs and panels fabbed to make my own (17 pots for the build I found on lines).
Nvidia has supported installing their latest cards into old Mac Pros for years now with their web driver. Nothing new. They still have no support for Apple EFI in these cards (meaning the cards have no video output during boot and install of OS updates, making them incredibly inconvenient to use in day to day work).
I believe you, so please don't take this is a challenge. It's pure curiosity that prompts me to ask: Do you have a source for more info on this IP range ban?
A tool to "filter" a work of art for yourself is also a tool to censor a work of art for someone else. In this case, and judging by the reactions from some parents here, most likely for your own children. So, despite the interesting framing of this as something that will create the "freedom to filter," it inevitably will be used to oppress.
Regardless, the end effect on the viewers (both willing and unwilling) is that they have not seen the work. They may in fact have a completely different understanding of the film or show than someone who actually has seen the work. A morally ambiguous character becomes wholly righteous. A villain becomes the hero. Violent acts cease to have a consequence of gore, perhaps of pain or death. Romance no longer leads to sex. Dialogue cut for swearing completely changes the perception of a character, the story, and the world.
In the end you have seen something worse than nothing at all--a cartoon caricature of what the creators intended. You have wasted your own time, perverted the aims of the artists behind the work, and done your children a disservice.
I feel very similarly, but also feel very strongly that is is very welcome thing in a world that seems more and more obsessed with shoving culture/content down our throats (ad-blocking software comes to mind as a similar thing). That being said, while I do use ad-blocking software, boycott companies that do excessive advertising and go out of my way to avoid advertisements (I pay for Netflix and Amazon prime and don't watch regular TV), I will not use this filter, for reasons you have stated. If I don't approve of the artist's vision (such as Michael Bay or McG, although that's more a case of artistic merits versus the content), I simply won't watch it at all.
Thanks for your thoughts, but I feel many of you are way too focused on the "big picture" and arguing about moral and ethical issues. Don't always try to make philosophic arguments about what should be and what shouldn't be. This is just a tool, a utility, something pragmatic, for use in
practice. Something to help people, creating value by doing what they wish for.
Somebody is always the one who shapes what you (or your children) see. If you watch uncensored movies, it's (mainly) the director who decides. If you apply some selected filters, it's you who decides and shapes the movie. This is not inherently bad. And not all scenes contribute to the development of characters and story. Some are just for shock value, etc.
That is very much the case at some restaurants that consider food to be art. Art is different. To be able to appreciate and understand it, it's all or nothing.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I know film is art, but movies are mostly watched for entertainment. Censoring entertainment seems totally fine to me -- I should be able to skip watching part of a baseball game if I want. Hell, it's MY mind and eyes -- why don't I get to control what goes in? Maybe I like 95% of something. Is that to be withheld because I don't like the other 5%?
I think the argument is that art is sort of a predictive negotiation: to go with the food analogy, most chefs just won't cook for you if they know you won't eat what they're making the way they've served it (e.g. if you cover everything in a flood of ketchup.) If you're not interested in the idea they're trying to communicate to you through the art, then they stop experiencing the self-actualization of communicating that idea, and instead feel like a commoditized provider of grist for you to construct your own experience from. That's not what they signed up for.
You absolutely do get to control what goes in, and I really don't care if people use this tool only for themselves. I think you will not have seen the work in question. I think you can not have understood it the same way that someone who saw the entirety of the work can understand it, and I would consider you to be a bit silly for wasting your time.
What do you feel you gain by excising the objectionable portions of a work?
I gain not being affected by it. My buddy loves masacre horror movies. They used to scare him and freak him out, but now he's numb and it's just entertaining to watch someone get chopped up. Sure it's not real, but the effect it had on him was real. I can't say this for certain (though I need to test it now) but I'll bet I respond in a much different way to real world violence than he does now. Your mind is affected by what you put in just like your body is affected by what you put into it.
