That's interesting - I feel [i]certain[/i] it's used, but of course, you'd need to verify for the OED.
The point of my questions is that, if a copy of the episode is available, why do you need to see a copy of the script? Is it because the possibility that actors could ad-lib the lines, and thus they might not be subject to an editing process, what stops TV shows from being valid texts?
A lot of the dates seem awfully late. For instance, for "cloaking device" they list 1996(!) and 1981 editions of books, while mentioning that, oh hey, Star Trek may have used the phrase "cloaking device" in the sixties, but we'd need to see the script to verify.
I don't understand: why does a usage have to be on paper to count for this project?
That's nothing. It was the only game I had for a long time, and I beat it once without ever getting hit. First mushroom, first fireflower, and never getting touched - the perfect Mario game?
Yeah actually, I think you're right. When you look at how the 'l' in 'palm' looks like a one, and the 'O' in 'One' looks like a zero, I think they were going for the numerical reference.
But still, I don't think it was leetspeak they were going for, it looks more like a binary computers-are-cool-and-complicated thing.
Another thing that comics on the web can do well that just doesn't work well on paper (or, at least, I've never seen work well) is exploit their digital nature.
For instance, I do a comic strip at qwantz.com where the exact same images are used, without modification, every day. Put that in a print book and you can be a little put off, because it does look so computer-generated. But on a computer screen, it's natural.
Remember how ugly Frank Millers Dark Knight sequel was? He and his colourist Lynn decided they'd stop trying to make computer colouring look like real colouring and just go all-the-way with digital. The result was that the vast majority was turned off ("it looks so artificial!" they say). I'd venture that if it were published online, they wouldn't bat an eyelash.
Oh, and while I'm talking about online comics... you should also look at a softer world which is sweet and sad and you're going to fall in love with it.
My reasoning is that I personally find writing in cursive faster than printing, therefore when I want to jot something down, cursive would be the quickest way of doing it.
I knew a guy in high school who claimed to know "three different kinds of shorthand". I always wondered why he didn't combine them into some manner of super-shorthand, but I guess either it's impossible or the thought never occured to him.
That's true. But I do find cursive works for fast jotting (especially note-taking in class) even better than scribbling or printing.
Something about joining the letters together, man. It's fast. Plus it's pretty easy (I find) for others to decipher, even when I'm going at full speed.
People will always need to jot things down in the forseeable future. What's easier, writing on a napkin or booting up your laptop? (or pulling your Newton 2010 out of your future-pocket?)
Besides, handwriting survived the introduction of the typewriter...
What concerns me is not that typing is becoming more popular, but that kids are learning to write on the Internet, to the point where kids hand in assignments with 'internet shorthand' in them, LOL. Wait, not LOL. WTF.
First, a plug: people interested in small press independent comics might be interested in my dinosaur comics. They are a study in genre and form!!
About getting comics to the masses: all I'm intending to do is self-publish and sell over my web site (and in a few comic book stores locally). When the price of self-publishing is so small, and you can distribute so easily, I don't see the real allure of professional printing. You can even get things professionally bound for a couple of dollars at your local copy shop.
Re:If Ars Technica is so concerned about usability
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've heard just the opposite. In fact, I knew a guy who had problems reading, and the only way he could understand text at a regular level was with black text on a white background.
The only reason black-on-white seems natural is when we started printing, it cost money to make a page full of black ink, while a white page was free.
For web pages, it makes sense to have white text on a black background - it is easier to read, especially if you're on a CRT... at least with all that black there it's not like you're trying to read off a lightbulb.
Well, that's my point. I think the cost does matter to all but the biggest companies (IBM and government, people like that) - most business are small businesses and they're not going to pay that. You have to get pretty big before it doesn't matter to you if a phone call costs $5 or $100.
quote: For most of the past year, on many US airlines, those phones inserted into the middle seat have borne a label reading "Service Disconnected." Those labels tell a simple story -- people don't like to make $40 phone calls.
Well, duh. Most people don't like to spend $40 on anything, let alone a phone call. I don't understand how businesses think that hey, if we're dealing with other business people, they'll want to throw money around like it was candy! Treat them like other people (ie: cheap) and you'll find you have more realistic expectations.
Last Update: 18 March 1999
The article was posted to his web site in 1999 and this is front-page stuff? And the article itself was published in 1997. Stop the presses!
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting - I feel [i]certain[/i] it's used, but of course, you'd need to verify for the OED.
The point of my questions is that, if a copy of the episode is available, why do you need to see a copy of the script? Is it because the possibility that actors could ad-lib the lines, and thus they might not be subject to an editing process, what stops TV shows from being valid texts?
A lot of the dates seem awfully late. For instance, for "cloaking device" they list 1996(!) and 1981 editions of books, while mentioning that, oh hey, Star Trek may have used the phrase "cloaking device" in the sixties, but we'd need to see the script to verify.
I don't understand: why does a usage have to be on paper to count for this project?
"from the this-changes-everything-and-nobody-cares dept."
I'm thinking maybe the dinosaurs involved cared just a little...
Blex! I hadn't thought of that page for years. That was a great little website.
Man... bad puns are apparently your domain!
But - "War and Peace" isn't on the list of offerings from audible.com!
That's nothing. It was the only game I had for a long time, and I beat it once without ever getting hit. First mushroom, first fireflower, and never getting touched - the perfect Mario game?
Yeah actually, I think you're right. When you look at how the 'l' in 'palm' looks like a one, and the 'O' in 'One' looks like a zero, I think they were going for the numerical reference.
But still, I don't think it was leetspeak they were going for, it looks more like a binary computers-are-cool-and-complicated thing.
Guys, it's not leetspeak: it's a font with serifs.
For instance, I do a comic strip at qwantz.com where the exact same images are used, without modification, every day. Put that in a print book and you can be a little put off, because it does look so computer-generated. But on a computer screen, it's natural.
Remember how ugly Frank Millers Dark Knight sequel was? He and his colourist Lynn decided they'd stop trying to make computer colouring look like real colouring and just go all-the-way with digital. The result was that the vast majority was turned off ("it looks so artificial!" they say). I'd venture that if it were published online, they wouldn't bat an eyelash.
Oh, and while I'm talking about online comics... you should also look at a softer world which is sweet and sad and you're going to fall in love with it.
My reasoning is that I personally find writing in cursive faster than printing, therefore when I want to jot something down, cursive would be the quickest way of doing it.
I knew a guy in high school who claimed to know "three different kinds of shorthand". I always wondered why he didn't combine them into some manner of super-shorthand, but I guess either it's impossible or the thought never occured to him.
Something about joining the letters together, man. It's fast. Plus it's pretty easy (I find) for others to decipher, even when I'm going at full speed.
In the future, Newtons are slim and have the handwriting recognition of a pharmacist!
Capital 'Q' in cursive looks like a '2'.
Besides, handwriting survived the introduction of the typewriter...
What concerns me is not that typing is becoming more popular, but that kids are learning to write on the Internet, to the point where kids hand in assignments with 'internet shorthand' in them, LOL. Wait, not LOL. WTF.
Well, actually the files are hosted on fileplanet, so it should be pretty ok.
Try here or here.
BOMBING the MOON for WATER.
I mean, holy crap, sure, sign me up! What's the worst that could happen, right?
First, a plug: people interested in small press independent comics might be interested in my dinosaur comics. They are a study in genre and form!!
About getting comics to the masses: all I'm intending to do is self-publish and sell over my web site (and in a few comic book stores locally). When the price of self-publishing is so small, and you can distribute so easily, I don't see the real allure of professional printing. You can even get things professionally bound for a couple of dollars at your local copy shop.
The only reason black-on-white seems natural is when we started printing, it cost money to make a page full of black ink, while a white page was free.
For web pages, it makes sense to have white text on a black background - it is easier to read, especially if you're on a CRT... at least with all that black there it's not like you're trying to read off a lightbulb.
Well, that's my point. I think the cost does matter to all but the biggest companies (IBM and government, people like that) - most business are small businesses and they're not going to pay that. You have to get pretty big before it doesn't matter to you if a phone call costs $5 or $100.
Well, duh. Most people don't like to spend $40 on anything, let alone a phone call. I don't understand how businesses think that hey, if we're dealing with other business people, they'll want to throw money around like it was candy! Treat them like other people (ie: cheap) and you'll find you have more realistic expectations.
Not only am I too cool for secured code, I'm too cool for school.
My mistake... I was looking at his other papers on his personal web site.
The article was posted to his web site in 1999 and this is front-page stuff? And the article itself was published in 1997. Stop the presses!