Wal-Mart has bins for titles at $5.50 and I've seen sales on titles as low as $3.50.
And the selection at both price points is almost universally crap. We're talking about downloading new, mainstream Disney films for $10 each, not five-year-old clearance-priced get-them-off-our-hands-please junk.
Old DVDs are pretty cheap. Used DVDs at Blockbuster's are pretty cheap. New DVDs are still US$20 a pop, except during the very first week at Wal-Mart or Best Buy.
So in other words, it's completely useless to many of us web developers, and isn't directly comparable with Dreamweaver? Thought so.
I've stopped being surprised at how little most intranet managers care about this. When a company's web server is using Microsoft servers anyway, and you don't have a choice about that, why shouldn't you use Microsoft's development software?
What's that you say? You have more experience with Dreamweaver, and you're already comfortable with that? Hmm. Too bad your employer doesn't have any copies of Dreamweaver in-house and they've already paid for Microsoft's dev software instead. Guess you'd better read up, or find another consulting position.
So long as the effects changes have no real impact of the story or the idea of the show I do not see a huge problem here.
You kidding? The stories and ideas were, four times out of five, the only huge problem there was. The special effects were pretty cutting-edge for the time they were made, and I for one don't think they need to be recreated when the entire rest of the show still screams 1960s.
I actually just read an old paperback copy of the Spider Robinson collection "Time Travellers Strictly Cash", which included a pro-Heinlein speech (or essay, I forget, and the book's all the way downstairs) humbly entitled "Rah Rah R.A.H.!" It's hard to be more pro-Heinlein than this guy is, without actually crossing the line into insanity.
Spider Robinson is an unabashed fan -- not that those are a rare breed, but Robinson's reputation as an SF critic gives him a bit more weight in that regard.
Will someone PLEASE explain why a *software* company feels its necessary to enter markets in which it has a competitive disadvantage years after the competition?
Because, as the XBox has shown, they can actually succeed at this if they're willing to spend both the time and the money on it.
Why do we need a planetary definition? Historically, any serious attempt to classify natural objects eventually runs into problems anyway
Because that's what science does. You develop a set of definitions that classifies things into the most convenient groups, so that you know certain things about them by their membership. Used to be an animal was any form of life that didn't grow in the soil. Then we found out that some microbes photosynthesize like plants, sponges eat like animals, and fungi do neither. So a new system was developed which conveys more information.
I find adding three planets this way a bit confusing, just because I'm in the habit of singing "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" when I need to remember the planets in order. But let's face it, the new definition makes sense. If it's big, round, and doesn't orbit another planet, it should be called a planet. The fact that Pluto and Charon orbit each other is a nuisance, but Charon never really made sense as a moon anyway.
Anyone REQUIRING it before then will be severely limiting their consumer base; games failing to be picked up due to a small consumer base will also affect the adoption rate since other game manufacturers will be watching those games that first launch with it.
Are you sure? I seem to recall that most game-heavy PC users went through a heavy upgrade cycle whenever id Software announced a new "Doom" or "Quake" game. If "Doom IV" were to require DirectX 10.1, you can bet that Microsoft would find a lot of upgrade sales on their sales sheet that quarter.
Is Dvorak really that bad? Sure he's got some crazy ideas and predictions, but sometimes he's really on the mark. Even if he's off a bit sometimes, he does bring up interesting topics and new mindset ways of thinking about current events and trends.
You could say the same about Ann Coulter, but I'm still not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
1. Windows (or UNIX) implements a useful feature. It is kludgy, difficult to use, and powerful in the right hands. 2. OS X (or Windows) borrows the feature, puts a GUI on top of it, and trumpets it with the next release. 3. UNIX (or OS X) copies the feature, customizes the GUI, tweaks it a bit to make it more powerful, and mentions it in the next release. 4. Windows (or UNIX) copies the feature, integrates it into the OS completely, tweaks it a bit to make it less useful, and fails to mention it at all.
who fired their design team? I mean, Apple hasn't released a new form factor since the Mac mini... two years ago now, nearly?
Good question. I'd have to guess that Apple's more concerned about getting the internal changes right than any new external stuff. And from a marketing perspective, it's easier for Apple to sell all-new Intel guts if we all see the same ol' iMac or Mac Mini on the outside.
I consider it a bit of a double standard to be criticizing Microsoft for "photocopying" on one hand and then unveiling a bunch of features that have been done before.
Jobs said that he was keeping the "secret" features undercover to that Redmond wouldn't start copying them already. Okay, that's a bit vain, but it also means that anything really new and radical in Leopard is being deliberately kept out-of-sight today.
About time with the virtual windows! Took them long enough...all other major *nix based window managers have them. Makes their "photocopying" comment at WWDC seem double edged, eh?
In all fairness, Leopard's Spaces implementation looks like a quantum improvement on other virtual desktop managers I've used. (Granted, it's been awhile since I tried any since I was never very satisfied.) None of the other VDMs I recall were quite "Mac-like" enough--by that I don't mean flashy and animated, but easy to use and understand.
They borrowed some design ideas from Exposé, it looks like; you can view all four of your desktops at once; you can drag-and-drop windows from one to the other; and they all use the same Dock instead of using different Docks for each desktop, which is the one thing I always wanted.
See also Leopard's Time Machine. There's a dozen ways you could make this kind of backup-restore tool just as functional; you could probably make it flashy and animated a dozen different ways as well. Leopard's approach uses just enough flashiness to make it easy-to-use.
Slashdot Mirror
I only noticed this enhancement after I installed iTunes 7 and watched it updating my library for gapless something-or-other.
About time. I mean, it only took them until version 7....
Wal-Mart has bins for titles at $5.50 and I've seen sales on titles as low as $3.50.
And the selection at both price points is almost universally crap. We're talking about downloading new, mainstream Disney films for $10 each, not five-year-old clearance-priced get-them-off-our-hands-please junk.
DVDs are pretty cheap these days.
Old DVDs are pretty cheap. Used DVDs at Blockbuster's are pretty cheap. New DVDs are still US$20 a pop, except during the very first week at Wal-Mart or Best Buy.
Can we get an end to all these misleading "Microsoft patents smiley faces!" type of headlines?
C'mon, you just need to get into the Slashdot spirit of these things....
Does it support Intel Macs? I can't find them mentioned on the project pages.
So in other words, it's completely useless to many of us web developers, and isn't directly comparable with Dreamweaver? Thought so.
I've stopped being surprised at how little most intranet managers care about this. When a company's web server is using Microsoft servers anyway, and you don't have a choice about that, why shouldn't you use Microsoft's development software?
What's that you say? You have more experience with Dreamweaver, and you're already comfortable with that? Hmm. Too bad your employer doesn't have any copies of Dreamweaver in-house and they've already paid for Microsoft's dev software instead. Guess you'd better read up, or find another consulting position.
So long as the effects changes have no real impact of the story or the idea of the show I do not see a huge problem here.
You kidding? The stories and ideas were, four times out of five, the only huge problem there was. The special effects were pretty cutting-edge for the time they were made, and I for one don't think they need to be recreated when the entire rest of the show still screams 1960s.
I actually just read an old paperback copy of the Spider Robinson collection "Time Travellers Strictly Cash", which included a pro-Heinlein speech (or essay, I forget, and the book's all the way downstairs) humbly entitled "Rah Rah R.A.H.!" It's hard to be more pro-Heinlein than this guy is, without actually crossing the line into insanity.
Spider Robinson is an unabashed fan -- not that those are a rare breed, but Robinson's reputation as an SF critic gives him a bit more weight in that regard.
How's that cure for cancer coming, guys?
If you're waiting for university students to come up with an effective cure for cancer, you're living in the wrong universe.
I've had webcams in bathr.... Nevermind, nothing to see here.
Your humility is astounding. Or is there something else unusual about you you'd rather not share?
Jeeeez, talk about flushing money down the drain....... :-)
Well, there are some people who just have to have the latest high-tech commode-ities.
It aint the artists, it's the labels.
In the case of the Beatles, they're one and the same.
While dolphins may have big brains, laboratory rats and goldfish can outwit them
Well, we already knew that dolphins were only the second-most-intelligent lifeform on this planet, the white mice being the first.
The goldfish thing is news, though. Maybe goldfish are just really really specialized dolphins, and nobody's noticed yet?
Of course this way you also get stories (hoax, urban legends) like the one about Symantec releasing virusses to sell their software...
Aren't you thinking of "V for Vendetta"?
Will someone PLEASE explain why a *software* company feels its necessary to enter markets in which it has a competitive disadvantage years after the competition?
Because, as the XBox has shown, they can actually succeed at this if they're willing to spend both the time and the money on it.
Why do we need a planetary definition? Historically, any serious attempt to classify natural objects eventually runs into problems anyway
Because that's what science does. You develop a set of definitions that classifies things into the most convenient groups, so that you know certain things about them by their membership. Used to be an animal was any form of life that didn't grow in the soil. Then we found out that some microbes photosynthesize like plants, sponges eat like animals, and fungi do neither. So a new system was developed which conveys more information.
I find adding three planets this way a bit confusing, just because I'm in the habit of singing "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" when I need to remember the planets in order. But let's face it, the new definition makes sense. If it's big, round, and doesn't orbit another planet, it should be called a planet. The fact that Pluto and Charon orbit each other is a nuisance, but Charon never really made sense as a moon anyway.
Anyone REQUIRING it before then will be severely limiting their consumer base; games failing to be picked up due to a small consumer base will also affect the adoption rate since other game manufacturers will be watching those games that first launch with it.
Are you sure? I seem to recall that most game-heavy PC users went through a heavy upgrade cycle whenever id Software announced a new "Doom" or "Quake" game. If "Doom IV" were to require DirectX 10.1, you can bet that Microsoft would find a lot of upgrade sales on their sales sheet that quarter.
Is Dvorak really that bad? Sure he's got some crazy ideas and predictions, but sometimes he's really on the mark. Even if he's off a bit sometimes, he does bring up interesting topics and new mindset ways of thinking about current events and trends.
You could say the same about Ann Coulter, but I'm still not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Pfft... Let me know when they've developed a mechanism similar to a laser mouse.
Didn't the Quintessons have something like that?
1. Windows (or UNIX) implements a useful feature. It is kludgy, difficult to use, and powerful in the right hands.
2. OS X (or Windows) borrows the feature, puts a GUI on top of it, and trumpets it with the next release.
3. UNIX (or OS X) copies the feature, customizes the GUI, tweaks it a bit to make it more powerful, and mentions it in the next release.
4. Windows (or UNIX) copies the feature, integrates it into the OS completely, tweaks it a bit to make it less useful, and fails to mention it at all.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.
Not anymore. Mine keeps reading "88:88" (and 88 seconds) ever since the LCD display got clobbered.
Doesn't Jobs always promise us three things per keynote? I guess the new XServe counts as a third one, but I wasn't watching.
who fired their design team? I mean, Apple hasn't released a new form factor since the Mac mini... two years ago now, nearly?
Good question. I'd have to guess that Apple's more concerned about getting the internal changes right than any new external stuff. And from a marketing perspective, it's easier for Apple to sell all-new Intel guts if we all see the same ol' iMac or Mac Mini on the outside.
I consider it a bit of a double standard to be criticizing Microsoft for "photocopying" on one hand and then unveiling a bunch of features that have been done before.
Jobs said that he was keeping the "secret" features undercover to that Redmond wouldn't start copying them already. Okay, that's a bit vain, but it also means that anything really new and radical in Leopard is being deliberately kept out-of-sight today.
About time with the virtual windows! Took them long enough...all other major *nix based window managers have them. Makes their "photocopying" comment at WWDC seem double edged, eh?
In all fairness, Leopard's Spaces implementation looks like a quantum improvement on other virtual desktop managers I've used. (Granted, it's been awhile since I tried any since I was never very satisfied.) None of the other VDMs I recall were quite "Mac-like" enough--by that I don't mean flashy and animated, but easy to use and understand.
They borrowed some design ideas from Exposé, it looks like; you can view all four of your desktops at once; you can drag-and-drop windows from one to the other; and they all use the same Dock instead of using different Docks for each desktop, which is the one thing I always wanted.
See also Leopard's Time Machine. There's a dozen ways you could make this kind of backup-restore tool just as functional; you could probably make it flashy and animated a dozen different ways as well. Leopard's approach uses just enough flashiness to make it easy-to-use.