That's the same sarcastic attitude that the manufacturers of large console radios had when Sony released its small, crappy-sounding transistor radios.
"Who wants the low quality, and tinny-sounding speakers?" they said.
But now Sony is a giant in consumer electronics, and all the old radio companies took a huge financial loss.
The way to compete against large, entrenched companies in the video industry is not to fight them on an equal playing field, but to sneak in with products that they sneer at.
All these effects, transparencies, and eye-candy "productivity" enhancers and CMD.exe is still a fixed-width black box.
With Microsoft moving heavily into scripting (via MSH and WSH) and trying to nab the system administrator crowd, why can't they make a nice aterm-like command window. Something I can resize on the fly and get a better font resolution on? I'm happy to use Cygwin Bash or MSH or SFU Korn shell, but dear god how I hate working in that little black box.
(Yes I know I can resize it in properties... But I want something I can dynamically resize aterm-like, but without having to install X and run aterm--too much damn hassle...)
Actually, wrong. As a once-upon-a-time nuclear operator in the US Navy, I know whereof I speak.
Sub-critical = power diminishing. Critical = power sustaining. Super-critical = power increasing.
You start a reactor by taking it super-critical, even it out into a critical level where the power is produced at a constant level, and shut it down by taking it sub-critical.
Look it up if you don't believe me: http://www.newnavy.us/nuclear-power/criticality.ht m
In an age of dynamic websites and self-configuring computer games (e.g., NetHack), why should movies stay static over time? I, for one, think that the possibilities in altering movies to adapt and add new and interesting ideas is an excellent one!
Movies are the modern theater for the masses. Theater, though, is staged and restaged. You think of a better way to cut Hamlet on stage? A more interesting spin on Oedipus? Go for it. The actors play the parts different, the costumes change, and so forth, and sometimes wholesale change in the dialogue is ordered. But people don't seem to get that pissed off that Ran is different than King Lear, because the differences are half the interest.
If we can reconfigure movies, cutting and mixing them like music to create new and interesting variations that strengthen the original material or take it into new directions, then why shouldn't we. People like techno remixes of songs, why shouldn't we also get remixes of movies?
The obvious point of difference, of course, is that Lucas is trying to turn a quick buck off a probably-simplistic remix. When the tools to do this sort of thing are in the hands of the people (and they become so, more and more), then the real interesting remixes will happen.
But why not use some old footage and a powerful computer to make our own remixes of Chewie beating the crap out of Jar-Jar? Or of Princess Leia and Padme Amidala snapping on their lightsabers to battle, side by side, the Borg (crossover remix).
That Lucas will generate another Greedo-firing-first crapmix shouldn't discredit the inherent coolness of the idea.
True, true. But those spreadsheets all use a DIFFERENT 10%. Get them all together and their union represents about 80% of Excel's features, particularly in the financial world (or even of most companies' CFOs).
Gnumeric is nice for the casual spreadsheet user, but worlds away from Excel's advanced features.
I wonder if they are planning on compensating the bug hunters whose advisories they recycle
This from the website that brought you "Voices from the Hellmouth", all without thinking about compensating the people who posted the comments that made up the content of the book.
The only problem, as Howard Zinn often notes, is that the Constitution is just an old piece of paper. If the Powers That Be decide no to enforce it (witness the Jim Crow era), then your Constitutional Rights are so much ink on paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Emilio Lizardo has been seen skulking around Austria muttering about acquiring this new "magnetic oscillation overthruster".
Scattered reports of Austrian rockets flying right through mountains and into the eighth dimensions are as yet unsubstantiated.
That's the same sarcastic attitude that the manufacturers of large console radios had when Sony released its small, crappy-sounding transistor radios.
"Who wants the low quality, and tinny-sounding speakers?" they said.
But now Sony is a giant in consumer electronics, and all the old radio companies took a huge financial loss.
The way to compete against large, entrenched companies in the video industry is not to fight them on an equal playing field, but to sneak in with products that they sneer at.
Aint ya never read the Innovator's Dilemma?
All these effects, transparencies, and eye-candy "productivity" enhancers and CMD.exe is still a fixed-width black box.
With Microsoft moving heavily into scripting (via MSH and WSH) and trying to nab the system administrator crowd, why can't they make a nice aterm-like command window. Something I can resize on the fly and get a better font resolution on? I'm happy to use Cygwin Bash or MSH or SFU Korn shell, but dear god how I hate working in that little black box.
(Yes I know I can resize it in properties... But I want something I can dynamically resize aterm-like, but without having to install X and run aterm--too much damn hassle...)
Actually, wrong. As a once-upon-a-time nuclear operator in the US Navy, I know whereof I speak.
t m
Sub-critical = power diminishing.
Critical = power sustaining.
Super-critical = power increasing.
You start a reactor by taking it super-critical, even it out into a critical level where the power is produced at a constant level, and shut it down by taking it sub-critical.
Look it up if you don't believe me: http://www.newnavy.us/nuclear-power/criticality.h
Will these flowers be genetically engineered to have numbers on them, indicating how many mines are growing in the plots next to them?
In an age of dynamic websites and self-configuring computer games (e.g., NetHack), why should movies stay static over time? I, for one, think that the possibilities in altering movies to adapt and add new and interesting ideas is an excellent one!
Movies are the modern theater for the masses. Theater, though, is staged and restaged. You think of a better way to cut Hamlet on stage? A more interesting spin on Oedipus? Go for it. The actors play the parts different, the costumes change, and so forth, and sometimes wholesale change in the dialogue is ordered. But people don't seem to get that pissed off that Ran is different than King Lear, because the differences are half the interest.
If we can reconfigure movies, cutting and mixing them like music to create new and interesting variations that strengthen the original material or take it into new directions, then why shouldn't we. People like techno remixes of songs, why shouldn't we also get remixes of movies?
The obvious point of difference, of course, is that Lucas is trying to turn a quick buck off a probably-simplistic remix. When the tools to do this sort of thing are in the hands of the people (and they become so, more and more), then the real interesting remixes will happen.
But why not use some old footage and a powerful computer to make our own remixes of Chewie beating the crap out of Jar-Jar? Or of Princess Leia and Padme Amidala snapping on their lightsabers to battle, side by side, the Borg (crossover remix).
That Lucas will generate another Greedo-firing-first crapmix shouldn't discredit the inherent coolness of the idea.
True, true. But those spreadsheets all use a DIFFERENT 10%. Get them all together and their union represents about 80% of Excel's features, particularly in the financial world (or even of most companies' CFOs).
Gnumeric is nice for the casual spreadsheet user, but worlds away from Excel's advanced features.
I wonder if they are planning on compensating the bug hunters whose advisories they recycle
This from the website that brought you "Voices from the Hellmouth", all without thinking about compensating the people who posted the comments that made up the content of the book.
The only problem, as Howard Zinn often notes, is that the Constitution is just an old piece of paper. If the Powers That Be decide no to enforce it (witness the Jim Crow era), then your Constitutional Rights are so much ink on paper.