> One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek > fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars > fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek. > I guess the different philosophies attracts > different types of fans.
And I've always found that Trek fans think their series is better (more serious sci-fi, deeper social issues, etc.) and look down their noses at Star Wars which is "just" space opera.
Why not just put it into an entertainment center with an open back (for ventilation) and a closed front?
As others have pointed out, the way to get rid of the noise from a small, fast fan is to replace it with a big, slow one. Not exactly easy in a Mac mini, but if you added some big slow fans to the entertainment center to move the air around the Mini (or whatever you get) then the fans inside might not have to work as hard. Another option would be to remove the case from the Mini. I don't know if the new 'unibody' models use the aluminum enclosure to transfer heat but once it's open, you could easily move a LOT of air across it and/or add custom fans and heat sinks.
Since you brought it up, what software did you use for ripping BDs on a Mac?
To the millions of people who will reply and say "so what?" I'd like to point out that learning to tie one's shoes is a good exercise in fine motor skills. That said, I agree that Velcro is easier to use.
In related (the times they are a-changin') news, I personally know two kids under 10 who have gotten into a car and asked "What's that?" while pointing at the window crank.:-)
Funny, I've had the idea to make a site like that for a long time--to make a scorecard of movies from the past that depicted the future, once we got past that date. (See also the book "Yesterday's Tomorrows")
The two that immediately spring to mind are "Back to the Future 2" (made in 1985, set in 2015) and "2001" (1968 -> 2001). Also included would be "2010" (made in 1984), "Terminator 2" (made in 1991; Judgement Day was supposed to be in 1997), and "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man" (made in 1991, set in 1996--not much to recommend it but I happen to remember it.) I'm sure there are tons of others--lots of movies (and TV shows, and books; not sure about plays) were set in the early 2000s.
If anybody likes this idea and wants to make a cool wiki (with "affiliate links to amazon" as the mysterious Step 2), moviefuture.com seems to be available. I could build and host the site in about 10 minutes, but I don't feel like maintaining it, publicizing it, keeping the spam out, etc. I've got enough other projects that I'm not getting to.:-)
In other news, I was saddened when Universal Studios Orlando changed their BttF ride into a Simpsons ride. Hopefully they made the whole thing "skinnable" and will bring it back (for a while, at least) in 2015.
In 1972, instant photography was no longer a novelty: the world had been introduced to it in 1947 when Polaroid co-founder Edwin H. Land unveiled the Model 95, the company's first camera...
The existence of previous instant cameras only helped emphasize what a great leap forward the SX-70 was. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it was a single-lens reflex (SLR) model with a viewfinder that showed exactly what you'd get. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it folded up into a 1"-thick leather-encased brick that was (just barely) pocketable. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it built the battery into the film pack. Even the flash--in the form of a Polaroid invention called a flashbar that packed ten bulbs into a double-sided array--was custom-designed for the SX-70.
Most important, unlike any other Polaroid, the SX-70 asked the photographer to do nothing more than focus, press the shutter, and pluck the snapshot as it emerged from the camera--and then watch it develop in daylight. It was the first camera to realize what Edwin Land said had been his dream all along: "absolute one-step photography."
The way I remember it, using Yahoo in '96/'97 would give you few results that were generally good. When searching, I'd start with Yahoo, and of it gave too few results (I remember doing searches for things and literally getting back less than a dozen results, if any) I'd try AltaVista, which would give tens of thousands of results on the same search terms. I'd go through up to about ten pages of results and about half the time I'd find what I wanted.
Anyway, no company--not Yahoo, not Google, not Apple, not Microsoft--is all good or all bad. Things are never that simple. Yahoo has done some cool things, and if they dry up and blow away, it will be sad and a loss.
> Requiring the CEO to buy a chunk of the company can provide them with a greater > financial stake in the company's success, or it can just provide them with the incentive > to axe the R&D department, pump out a few quarters that Wall Street loves, and give > themselves a giant bonus in the form of "shareholder value" before moving on... > > If anything, having a CEO without major holdings... might actually help ensure > that they take the long view...
It's not either/or. There are ways to give someone a stake in the company and make it in their best interests to stick around and do good work. From last month's news about Apple's new CEO...
In connection with Mr. Cook's appointment as Chief Executive Officer, the Board awarded Mr. Cook 1,000,000 restricted stock units. Fifty percent of the restricted stock units are scheduled to vest on each of August 24, 2016 and August 24, 2021, subject to Mr. Cook's continued employment with Apple through each such date.
At the moment, those one million shares are worth about $400 million. It's entirely possible he'll become a billionaire as Apple's CEO.
If you have a computer and projector, consider logo. You can start by making a square (forward 20, right turn 90, forward 20, right turn 90, etc.) and then you can show how loops save time with its REPEAT command. Then, by wrapping a few repeats, you can make a lot of shapes (like, fill up the screen with squares to make a grid) very quickly with just a few lines.
One cool thing about logo is it goes slow so you get to actually watch the shape being drawn and you can really see what's happening--it's not just like "enter commands, hit return, and BANG there's a square."
Every review of the HP TouchPad said "A decent tablet, but no match for the iPad 2." Most agree that it is roughly comparable to the original iPad. At $99, a tablet of that quality will fly off the shelves. $99 piece-of-shit tablets like the Pandigital Novel are not flying off the shelves, nor is anyone skipping work to get them.
> 2. By checking scalpers prices, I can deduce that about > $235 (16 gig), and $250 (32 gig) is where people stop > buying them on impulse.
Again, this is TouchPad pricing. What we are truly seeing here by looking at all the craigslsit and eBay listings is that people value the TouchPad at around $250. It's value has dropped, actually, since everyone buying one is doing so knowing it's a dead-end product with no serious long-term prospects or support. If HP were still in the business, they could probably sell a decent amount of them for $299. Sadly, that number would not allow them to run a profitable operation. It's important to remember that Apple is making a profit on the iPad largely because they have done some very smart spending. If Apple tablets were merely "overpriced", there would be TONS of good tablets for less, right? This is NOT just a case of "apple rep pushing the price up higher".
However, this does prove EXACTLY how stupid HP is, if they killed it so quickly without knowing about 1 or 2 (whichever it was, if not both.) As for being "stunned" at the response--really? I mean, they got lukewarm reviews, but everyone said they were decent devices, and HP could have EASILY sold all of their stock at about $249 each*, and not looked quite so much like chickens with their heads cut off while doing so. The only message the $99 price sent was "We want out of this fucking business TODAY."
And in case anyone is wondering why HP is doing what they're doing, read this. Very nice one-page summary from the Wall Street Journal.
* $499: no sales. $449: no sales. $399: no sales. $99: SOLD OUT IN HOURS. Maybe there's a reasonable (though still not profitable) middle ground there somewhere...
... if you want to know what needs fixing in Explorer, look at the graph labeled "Command usage in Windows Explorer" and note that "Refresh" is in sixth place.
I'm a bit sad that my UID is as high as it is. I was reading here for a long time but never felt the need to post, so I never made an account in the early days. I only made an account after Slashdot had become quite popular--once it got to the point where a standard page had so may comments that it was taking too long to download by 33.6 modem, I made an account so I could set a default threshold for comments to make the pages shorter.
Thanks for all your work. I've spent many an enjoyable hour here, and I'm proud to say I have never once read an article.
The Tiffany Blue color is protected as a color trademark by Tiffany & Co. in some jurisdictions including the U.S.
The color is produced as a private custom color by Pantone, with PMS number 1837, the number deriving from the year of Tiffany's foundation. As a trademarked color, it is not publicly available and is not printed in the Pantone Matching System swatch books.
27 September, 2007 - The High Court rejected the petrol giant BP Green's 16-year battle to register its distinctive green — known as Pantone 348C — as a trademark. Companies that have successfully registered a colour include;
Commonwealth Bank of Australia for its trademark yellow and black;
Kraft for the silver on its cheese packaging; and
Tiffany & Co for the distinctive blue on its jewellery boxes.
But the three High Court judges were not convinced that BP should have a monopoly over the BP shade of green.
... does including a screenshot taken from a possibly-copyright-infringing YouTube video count as "fair use"? Or did they get permission from the copyright holder to include that image?
Come on, people, we need to dot every i and cross every t when it comes to Imaginary Property laws.
Can you name one 10" tablet currently on the market that has the same battery life (or better) than the iPad 2? Is it also as thin (or thinner), as light (or lighter), and the same price (or cheaper) than the iPad 2?
Slashdot Mirror
> One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek
> fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars
> fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek.
> I guess the different philosophies attracts
> different types of fans.
And I've always found that Trek fans think their series is better (more serious sci-fi, deeper social issues, etc.) and look down their noses at Star Wars which is "just" space opera.
Is this the same NASA that thought there was a 1-in-100,000 chance of a catastrophic Shuttle failure?
The part where the carriers will turn it off as soon as people start using it too much, just like everything else.
Sorry, I forgot--the beginning is only a little in the future--1996 (released in 1993.) Will need to watch that one again.
... I need to pick up a "please do not rob me" sign on my way home today.
Why not just put it into an entertainment center with an open back (for ventilation) and a closed front?
As others have pointed out, the way to get rid of the noise from a small, fast fan is to replace it with a big, slow one. Not exactly easy in a Mac mini, but if you added some big slow fans to the entertainment center to move the air around the Mini (or whatever you get) then the fans inside might not have to work as hard. Another option would be to remove the case from the Mini. I don't know if the new 'unibody' models use the aluminum enclosure to transfer heat but once it's open, you could easily move a LOT of air across it and/or add custom fans and heat sinks.
Since you brought it up, what software did you use for ripping BDs on a Mac?
Because of all the people with bad skin?
Good one... but 2032 is a good ways away. :-)
To the millions of people who will reply and say "so what?" I'd like to point out that learning to tie one's shoes is a good exercise in fine motor skills. That said, I agree that Velcro is easier to use.
In related (the times they are a-changin') news, I personally know two kids under 10 who have gotten into a car and asked "What's that?" while pointing at the window crank. :-)
Funny, I've had the idea to make a site like that for a long time--to make a scorecard of movies from the past that depicted the future, once we got past that date. (See also the book "Yesterday's Tomorrows")
The two that immediately spring to mind are "Back to the Future 2" (made in 1985, set in 2015) and "2001" (1968 -> 2001). Also included would be "2010" (made in 1984), "Terminator 2" (made in 1991; Judgement Day was supposed to be in 1997), and "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man" (made in 1991, set in 1996--not much to recommend it but I happen to remember it.) I'm sure there are tons of others--lots of movies (and TV shows, and books; not sure about plays) were set in the early 2000s.
If anybody likes this idea and wants to make a cool wiki (with "affiliate links to amazon" as the mysterious Step 2), moviefuture.com seems to be available. I could build and host the site in about 10 minutes, but I don't feel like maintaining it, publicizing it, keeping the spam out, etc. I've got enough other projects that I'm not getting to. :-)
In other news, I was saddened when Universal Studios Orlando changed their BttF ride into a Simpsons ride. Hopefully they made the whole thing "skinnable" and will bring it back (for a while, at least) in 2015.
Just a few months ago, Technologizer wrote a great article about this very item and the work behind it: Polaroid's SX-70: The Art and Science of the Nearly Impossible
In 1972, instant photography was no longer a novelty: the world had been introduced to it in 1947 when Polaroid co-founder Edwin H. Land unveiled the Model 95, the company's first camera...
The existence of previous instant cameras only helped emphasize what a great leap forward the SX-70 was. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it was a single-lens reflex (SLR) model with a viewfinder that showed exactly what you'd get. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it folded up into a 1"-thick leather-encased brick that was (just barely) pocketable. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it built the battery into the film pack. Even the flash--in the form of a Polaroid invention called a flashbar that packed ten bulbs into a double-sided array--was custom-designed for the SX-70.
Most important, unlike any other Polaroid, the SX-70 asked the photographer to do nothing more than focus, press the shutter, and pluck the snapshot as it emerged from the camera--and then watch it develop in daylight. It was the first camera to realize what Edwin Land said had been his dream all along: "absolute one-step photography."
The way I remember it, using Yahoo in '96/'97 would give you few results that were generally good. When searching, I'd start with Yahoo, and of it gave too few results (I remember doing searches for things and literally getting back less than a dozen results, if any) I'd try AltaVista, which would give tens of thousands of results on the same search terms. I'd go through up to about ten pages of results and about half the time I'd find what I wanted.
Anyway, no company--not Yahoo, not Google, not Apple, not Microsoft--is all good or all bad. Things are never that simple. Yahoo has done some cool things, and if they dry up and blow away, it will be sad and a loss.
> Requiring the CEO to buy a chunk of the company can provide them with a greater
> financial stake in the company's success, or it can just provide them with the incentive
> to axe the R&D department, pump out a few quarters that Wall Street loves, and give
> themselves a giant bonus in the form of "shareholder value" before moving on...
>
> If anything, having a CEO without major holdings... might actually help ensure
> that they take the long view...
It's not either/or. There are ways to give someone a stake in the company and make it in their best interests to stick around and do good work. From last month's news about Apple's new CEO...
In connection with Mr. Cook's appointment as Chief Executive Officer, the Board awarded Mr. Cook 1,000,000 restricted stock units. Fifty percent of the restricted stock units are scheduled to vest on each of August 24, 2016 and August 24, 2021, subject to Mr. Cook's continued employment with Apple through each such date.
At the moment, those one million shares are worth about $400 million. It's entirely possible he'll become a billionaire as Apple's CEO.
I love fast flip. :-(
If you have a computer and projector, consider logo. You can start by making a square (forward 20, right turn 90, forward 20, right turn 90, etc.) and then you can show how loops save time with its REPEAT command. Then, by wrapping a few repeats, you can make a lot of shapes (like, fill up the screen with squares to make a grid) very quickly with just a few lines.
One cool thing about logo is it goes slow so you get to actually watch the shape being drawn and you can really see what's happening--it's not just like "enter commands, hit return, and BANG there's a square."
An important adjustment to your data...
> At $99 people will fight for good tablets.
Every review of the HP TouchPad said "A decent tablet, but no match for the iPad 2." Most agree that it is roughly comparable to the original iPad. At $99, a tablet of that quality will fly off the shelves. $99 piece-of-shit tablets like the Pandigital Novel are not flying off the shelves, nor is anyone skipping work to get them.
> 2. By checking scalpers prices, I can deduce that about
> $235 (16 gig), and $250 (32 gig) is where people stop
> buying them on impulse.
Again, this is TouchPad pricing. What we are truly seeing here by looking at all the craigslsit and eBay listings is that people value the TouchPad at around $250. It's value has dropped, actually, since everyone buying one is doing so knowing it's a dead-end product with no serious long-term prospects or support. If HP were still in the business, they could probably sell a decent amount of them for $299. Sadly, that number would not allow them to run a profitable operation. It's important to remember that Apple is making a profit on the iPad largely because they have done some very smart spending. If Apple tablets were merely "overpriced", there would be TONS of good tablets for less, right? This is NOT just a case of "apple rep pushing the price up higher".
Wait, stop me if you've heard this one before.
However, this does prove EXACTLY how stupid HP is, if they killed it so quickly without knowing about 1 or 2 (whichever it was, if not both.) As for being "stunned" at the response--really? I mean, they got lukewarm reviews, but everyone said they were decent devices, and HP could have EASILY sold all of their stock at about $249 each*, and not looked quite so much like chickens with their heads cut off while doing so. The only message the $99 price sent was "We want out of this fucking business TODAY."
And in case anyone is wondering why HP is doing what they're doing, read this. Very nice one-page summary from the Wall Street Journal.
* $499: no sales. $449: no sales. $399: no sales. $99: SOLD OUT IN HOURS. Maybe there's a reasonable (though still not profitable) middle ground there somewhere...
... if you want to know what needs fixing in Explorer, look at the graph labeled "Command usage in Windows Explorer" and note that "Refresh" is in sixth place.
I guess it hasn't been proven scientifically that wishing doesn't work... Good luck with that, Mr. Wang!
... and I start all my messages the same way: "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
I'll give you $20 for your UID. :-)
I'm a bit sad that my UID is as high as it is. I was reading here for a long time but never felt the need to post, so I never made an account in the early days. I only made an account after Slashdot had become quite popular--once it got to the point where a standard page had so may comments that it was taking too long to download by 33.6 modem, I made an account so I could set a default threshold for comments to make the pages shorter.
Thanks for all your work. I've spent many an enjoyable hour here, and I'm proud to say I have never once read an article.
Tiffany & Co. has trademarked a certain shade of blue.
The Tiffany Blue color is protected as a color trademark by Tiffany & Co. in some jurisdictions including the U.S.
The color is produced as a private custom color by Pantone, with PMS number 1837, the number deriving from the year of Tiffany's foundation. As a trademarked color, it is not publicly available and is not printed in the Pantone Matching System swatch books.
But BP didn't get to trademark their green (at least in Australia.)
27 September, 2007 - The High Court rejected the petrol giant BP Green's 16-year battle to register its distinctive green — known as Pantone 348C — as a trademark. Companies that have successfully registered a colour include;
But the three High Court judges were not convinced that BP should have a monopoly over the BP shade of green.
... does including a screenshot taken from a possibly-copyright-infringing YouTube video count as "fair use"? Or did they get permission from the copyright holder to include that image?
Come on, people, we need to dot every i and cross every t when it comes to Imaginary Property laws.
Can you name one 10" tablet currently on the market that has the same battery life (or better) than the iPad 2? Is it also as thin (or thinner), as light (or lighter), and the same price (or cheaper) than the iPad 2?
"Pretentious prick", indeed.