Here's another one I caught just recently too. In Episode IV A New Hope. The good guys have just escaped the Death Star. Princess Leia knows that they were allowed to escape and say so, including that they are being tracked. So... where do they go? That's right... straight to the rebel base, the secrecy of which she just risked life and limb to protect. Score one for plot holes.
Anyway, the point I'm making here is not that these are bad films because of plot holes, but that any fantasy or sci-fi film is going to have them. I love the movies, plot holes and all. The viewer must be a willing participant or the films will suck. The prequels don't seem to be getting the same willing participation that the older films got. They are no worse than the originals in almost any respect.
If plot holes ruin these films for you, then how did you enjoy any of them? Fantasy stories are flawed by design, by the very fact that they must break with reality. The original trilogy is rife with plot holes.
I was just watching Empire Strikes Back a few weeks ago (you know, the film that so many fanboys claim is flawless and perfect?) and I caught a screamer. Why is it that Luke's training with Yoda appears to take a long period of time (seemingly many days--even Yoda refers to the events in terms of days) and yet the story of what's happening with the Millennium Falcon appears to take a matter of hours and yet, the two plot lines converge toward the end of the film anyway.
That's one amongst many, many plot holes and problems. Finding these things is really not the point of watching them. If you seek films without that kind of problem, you probably shouldn't be watching things like Star Wars in the first place.
Before any of you who love to perceive everything as a partisan issue start pointing out that he's a Democrat, please keep one thing in mind. Historically, neither party is shy about raising taxes; the difference is that only one party will tell what it's doing while the other finds sneaky ways to do what they do.
I hope that both Democratic and Republican Slashdotters are against this.
If he's running Linux, then he hasn't switched to a Mac. He's just using Apple hardware. The phrase "using a Mac" entails the hardware and OS. It would seem this story is a little overblown, IMO. This is no more noteworthy than him running Linux on a PC.
Not until Apple has 90% of the computing market can we ever begin to entertain these fantasies that they are like MS. One of the necessary components to MS's overpowering of others is the fact that whatever they do is the de facto standard. That's only possible because of their huge market share (and no, just having a large market share of music downloads isn't the same.) Apple couldn't do what MS did to Java because Apple doesn't have that kind of power. Apple probably never will unless they radically change their focus as a company.
And no, I'm not an Apple apologist. I use Macs, but I have a love-hate relationship with Apple. I don't agree with everything they do but they certainly don't have the kind of power to become "the new Microsoft." Please. Think about what the phrase really entails.
Sorry my Australian friend, but I will feel no guilt until you folks can answer for the unpardonable act of unleashing the abomination called The Wiggles on the world.;^)
Well damn, this is kind of embarrassing. I hadn't read cgrayson's comments even before replying. His comment wasn't one I was intending to respond to. I had read a load of comments yesterday, some defending MS and then I saw the subject with "mistake" in it (probably while scrolling up and down through some of the comments) and must have assumed that was a comment I intended to reply to, without stopping to make sure. That's what I get for slashdotting in a hurry. *sigh* Major brain fart. My apologies, guys.
If this "mistake" had happened with a company without a long history of using underhanded tactics to undermine the competition, then I might agree with you.
And remember. We're not just dealing with some little software company. Microsoft is the biggest, most powerful software company on the planet with resources beyond what most of us can even begin to imagine and you don't wonder why a browser that is commonly installed on many PCs comes up as a high alert for spyware? You don't wonder at all? Did anyone at the biggest, most powerful software company on the planet with resources beyond what most of us can imagine test this thing at some point before releasing it?
You can't possibly not find that suspicious.
Not even a little?
I would think there is a certain threshold for naivete around Slashdot and that this would land far above that for most readers here.
Why this guy is still being published is beyond me but even more puzzling is why any of his flimsy work deserves a spot on Slashdot. The man has no credibility and his "informed opinions" seem to be pulled from some region just south of his lower back. Why on earth does anyone waste their time reading his stuff?
I'm not trolling here. It's a serious question. The guy is the quintessential know-nothing tech writer who seems to have figured out how to thrive by writing utter hogwash.
Seriously. Name one thing in the last five years he's actually gotten right.
If Apple really wanted to hit these rumor sites where they hurt, they could take the money they're wasting with these lawsuits and hire some people to spread false rumors, leak faked images, send out wrong info, etc. Nothing does more damage to a rumors site that posting something that turns out to be BS. SpyMac completely bailed out of the rumors business after they posted all that bunk about the iWalk.
As much as I hate to sound like I'm defending this kind of corporate indifference, you have to keep a few things in mind:
1. Imagine this from Blizzard's point of view. Someone calls up with your story. What do you think their position will be? Software companies must defend their best interests, and willfully going along with any request and any likely story could open them up to all kinds of abuses.
2. I may be wrong, but I don't think the lack of mention of something in a EULA implies that the buyer has such a usage right.
3. A lawsuit for such a small amount seems a little bit of an overreation. I would discuss it with the seller and see if he/she is willing to refund your money, and if not (and I would hardly expect it), just chalk it up as a lesson learned. I'm not sure how old you are, but I've lived long enough to know friends who have learned far more expensive lessons than this. I agree that it sucks, but consider yourself lucky to some extent.
I can see how useful that would be if you have lots of people over for parties, but then, that's something I did in the past a lot too that I've lost interest in (and lack time as well.) It still seems to me that subscription services are aimed at a younger audience.
The real issue with subscription services is people like me... music-lovers who get out of college, get a job, get married, have kids and don't have time anymore to listen to thousands of songs a month. I'd love to have that kind of time again to explore my every musical whim the way I used to, but that's the reality of life. You have less and less time for those kinds of things (and some of us just get set in our ways too and find that kind of thing less and less interesting.) I still love discovering new bands and new music here and there, but I could never justify a subscription service given the amount of time I have. I know that I'm not alone in that dilemma.
Napster is making a mistake, I believe, in aiming such a service at everyone when it will only really make sense (in general, I know there are exceptions) to a very young crowd... i.e., a very young and tech-savvy crowd that doesn't usually have a lot of disposable income and can find music via other, less reputable methods.
Apple is catering to a crowd that doesn't mind paying for its music whereas Napster (and other subscription services) isn't. It's not hard to see why subscription services haven't really taken off, even though they look like a great idea on paper and appear to have all kinds of advantages.
Wrong. True, Apple has a smaller market share, but that's when you look at the whole computing market. In the home market (where Applescript was intended to be used, btw), the percentage of users is higher.
Most Mac users don't use AppleScript.
Wrong. Most Mac users don't program Applescript. There are lots of Applescripts out there that can be downloaded and used as-is. (Apple supplies a bunch of their own with the default OS X install.) I know lots of people who have used Applescript without knowing a thing about it. Also, Applescript was designed to be a programming language for non-programmers. I've known people who have figured out how to get things done with Applescripts without knowing much about how to use it. There isn't a huge learning curve involved for very basic stuff. In fact, there is a "record" button on the Applescript compiler interface that will write out a script from actions you're doing.
Also, you might want to check out the future of Applescripting which is going to make non-programmer usage a lot easier.
Most of those who use it don't really need a manual.
Wrong. Despite its power, Applescript is woefully underdocumented. This is because Applescript has been on the chopping block more than once. It was supposed to have been tossed out with the advent of OS X, but users (did you catch that? Users) were upset by this and Apple relented to complaints and put it back in.
There are two good manuals out there already anyway.
There is a difference between art as a decorative form and art as a communicative form. Computers will excel at the former because it's all about rules; they will fail at the latter because it's all about having something to say.
There almost should be different, exclusive terms for these two forms of art. Computers will easily be able to understand our rules of aesthetics for generating decorative art forms, and in fact, computers should be able to outdo humans in that area because they will consistently follow the rules, keeping personal eccentricities out of it Assuming, of course, that those rules are good and up-to-date (and that's a problem too in that the rules will reflect shifts in styles and visual trends and will have to be updated... by a human.)
Until the day comes that computers can think for themselves, can contemplate their own existence, can look up at the stars and wonder what the world is all about then they will not be able to create communicative art forms. Don't expect a computer to generate the next Guernica or The Persistence of Memory off a set of rules.
Nobody would care until of course one of those giggling school girls grows up and becomes a famous writer and wants to either a) republish some of her early blog work or, b) defend herself from "plagiarizing" herself by writing things similar to her blog material. Do we really need our court system tied up with these kinds of silly issues or should there be clear and well-defined laws concerning it? I say the latter primarily because it will waste fewer tax dollars (yours and mine both) that could have been put to better use elsewhere.
Here it comes. Microsoft knows that it's losing this to Apple so their next "innovation" will be WinTunes. It will come preinstalled on all Windows machines and suddenly a lot of PC vendors will mysteriously no longer want to preinstall iTunes. Via some funky reverse-engineering WinTunes will work perfectly with iTunes music store and the iPod and Microsoft will extend the iTunes music store experience with unique features for WinTunes users. And then, a new WinTunes store and the WinPlayer. Apple will sue them for it, but it will drag on so long in the courts that Microsoft will have already driven iTunes music store and the iPod into an early grave.
And people still won't listen when you and I and every "fanatical Microsoft hater" on the planet scream about illegal monopolies.
Sigh. I'm only partly joking about this, btw. Sadly, I would bet money that this scenario or something like this will happen in the next few years.
There is a mall in Bellingham called Bellis Fair which is similiar sounding (I guess) to Bell Square. Perhaps that (coupled with Bellingham and Bellevue similar names) is where the confusion is coming from.
A friend of mine took the wording and created images of the opening crawl. They're online if any of you are interested and he created them big enough to use as wallpapers.
Incidentally, he researched this very carefully and the type face is exact (found interviews with LucasFilm folks where the font are discussed.) He also did very meticulous work getting the perspective of the text, the color and the leading correct. It's not the real thing, but it sure looks like it.
Creative... yet another company like Real that could have had the jump on Apple in the digital music arena had they had the initiative and vision. (Ironic that neither company lives up to its name, eh?) Now it's all come down to just carping and whining (meaning of course, last week's comment about how the iPod Shuffle will "be laughed at.")
The iPod's success is all about the entire experience not just the player. That's why all these wannabes will fail--including Microsoft--because they think that being good at one part of the whole picture is good enough. It isn't. If it were, companies doing this stuff would have taken off long before the iPod and iTunes came along. Apple's real coup was recognizing that nobody offered a whole, integrated experience and and how much that would change things. Good for them. It's good to see a tech company realize that people, for the most part, don't give a rip about the technology, just whether the damn thing works like it should and if it's designed well.
One other thing to remember is that the iPod and iTunes branding is phenomenal. "Branding" is a hot buzzword amongst marketing folks right now, and believe me, the iPod/iTunes branding is a marketing person's wet dream. An Apple branded iPod player will wipe out the low-end player segment easily even if it's an inferior product.
However, if the product is quality (and I suspect it is) Apple will have loads of converts. Creative understands all this, thus the public noisemaking. They're trying to do pre-emptive damage control. I don't blame 'em, but as with Real, I think it's too little, too late.
First off (and can we get this straight once and for all?) being a monopoly IS NOT illegal. Abusing your monopoly power is. (And I would still say applying the word "monopoly" to a company with a 5% market share at best is one of the silliest uses of that term, but for the sake of argument....)
Now, rewrite your post pointing out where and how Apple has used its so-called monopoly power to walk over competitors and create unfair playing fields or situations where honest competition cannot happen. Oh, and the perception by a third party that there is no incentive is not the result of Apple abusing their "monopoly." And neither is Apple stealing ideas for Sherlock and Dashboard or whatever from small developers. Those developers could have patented their ideas and staved off such a move. Copying someone's unprotected idea is fair game in business. That's all fair (not very nice, I've give you, but fair nonetheless.) However, if Apple were actively undermining the efforts of their competitors by using their monopoly power in a behind-the-scenes way, that would be illegal.
That's what Microsoft was accused of doing and summarily found guilty of. The bundling of software by MS wasn't illegal per se but was rather pinpointed as part of the way MS kept competitors at bay.
Just being a monopoly isn't illegal at all, and in fact, in some situations, the government supports a monopoly in order to further a given technology or product. I think we can all agree that the government-sanctioned monopoly on telephone services served a purpose at one time in history.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, the point I'm making here is not that these are bad films because of plot holes, but that any fantasy or sci-fi film is going to have them. I love the movies, plot holes and all. The viewer must be a willing participant or the films will suck. The prequels don't seem to be getting the same willing participation that the older films got. They are no worse than the originals in almost any respect.
I was just watching Empire Strikes Back a few weeks ago (you know, the film that so many fanboys claim is flawless and perfect?) and I caught a screamer. Why is it that Luke's training with Yoda appears to take a long period of time (seemingly many days--even Yoda refers to the events in terms of days) and yet the story of what's happening with the Millennium Falcon appears to take a matter of hours and yet, the two plot lines converge toward the end of the film anyway.
That's one amongst many, many plot holes and problems. Finding these things is really not the point of watching them. If you seek films without that kind of problem, you probably shouldn't be watching things like Star Wars in the first place.
I hope that both Democratic and Republican Slashdotters are against this.
HAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
HAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
gasp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHA!!!
(etc.)
And no, I'm not an Apple apologist. I use Macs, but I have a love-hate relationship with Apple. I don't agree with everything they do but they certainly don't have the kind of power to become "the new Microsoft." Please. Think about what the phrase really entails.
Sorry my Australian friend, but I will feel no guilt until you folks can answer for the unpardonable act of unleashing the abomination called The Wiggles on the world. ;^)
And remember. We're not just dealing with some little software company. Microsoft is the biggest, most powerful software company on the planet with resources beyond what most of us can even begin to imagine and you don't wonder why a browser that is commonly installed on many PCs comes up as a high alert for spyware? You don't wonder at all? Did anyone at the biggest, most powerful software company on the planet with resources beyond what most of us can imagine test this thing at some point before releasing it?
You can't possibly not find that suspicious.
Not even a little?
I would think there is a certain threshold for naivete around Slashdot and that this would land far above that for most readers here.
I'm not trolling here. It's a serious question. The guy is the quintessential know-nothing tech writer who seems to have figured out how to thrive by writing utter hogwash.
Seriously. Name one thing in the last five years he's actually gotten right.
If Apple really wanted to hit these rumor sites where they hurt, they could take the money they're wasting with these lawsuits and hire some people to spread false rumors, leak faked images, send out wrong info, etc. Nothing does more damage to a rumors site that posting something that turns out to be BS. SpyMac completely bailed out of the rumors business after they posted all that bunk about the iWalk.
1. Imagine this from Blizzard's point of view. Someone calls up with your story. What do you think their position will be? Software companies must defend their best interests, and willfully going along with any request and any likely story could open them up to all kinds of abuses.
2. I may be wrong, but I don't think the lack of mention of something in a EULA implies that the buyer has such a usage right.
3. A lawsuit for such a small amount seems a little bit of an overreation. I would discuss it with the seller and see if he/she is willing to refund your money, and if not (and I would hardly expect it), just chalk it up as a lesson learned. I'm not sure how old you are, but I've lived long enough to know friends who have learned far more expensive lessons than this. I agree that it sucks, but consider yourself lucky to some extent.
Napster is making a mistake, I believe, in aiming such a service at everyone when it will only really make sense (in general, I know there are exceptions) to a very young crowd... i.e., a very young and tech-savvy crowd that doesn't usually have a lot of disposable income and can find music via other, less reputable methods.
Apple is catering to a crowd that doesn't mind paying for its music whereas Napster (and other subscription services) isn't. It's not hard to see why subscription services haven't really taken off, even though they look like a great idea on paper and appear to have all kinds of advantages.
Wrong. True, Apple has a smaller market share, but that's when you look at the whole computing market. In the home market (where Applescript was intended to be used, btw), the percentage of users is higher.
Most Mac users don't use AppleScript.
Wrong. Most Mac users don't program Applescript. There are lots of Applescripts out there that can be downloaded and used as-is. (Apple supplies a bunch of their own with the default OS X install.) I know lots of people who have used Applescript without knowing a thing about it. Also, Applescript was designed to be a programming language for non-programmers. I've known people who have figured out how to get things done with Applescripts without knowing much about how to use it. There isn't a huge learning curve involved for very basic stuff. In fact, there is a "record" button on the Applescript compiler interface that will write out a script from actions you're doing.
Also, you might want to check out the future of Applescripting which is going to make non-programmer usage a lot easier.
Most of those who use it don't really need a manual.
Wrong. Despite its power, Applescript is woefully underdocumented. This is because Applescript has been on the chopping block more than once. It was supposed to have been tossed out with the advent of OS X, but users (did you catch that? Users) were upset by this and Apple relented to complaints and put it back in.
There are two good manuals out there already anyway.
Hey, you got something right.
There almost should be different, exclusive terms for these two forms of art. Computers will easily be able to understand our rules of aesthetics for generating decorative art forms, and in fact, computers should be able to outdo humans in that area because they will consistently follow the rules, keeping personal eccentricities out of it Assuming, of course, that those rules are good and up-to-date (and that's a problem too in that the rules will reflect shifts in styles and visual trends and will have to be updated... by a human.)
Until the day comes that computers can think for themselves, can contemplate their own existence, can look up at the stars and wonder what the world is all about then they will not be able to create communicative art forms. Don't expect a computer to generate the next Guernica or The Persistence of Memory off a set of rules.
And people still won't listen when you and I and every "fanatical Microsoft hater" on the planet scream about illegal monopolies.
Sigh. I'm only partly joking about this, btw. Sadly, I would bet money that this scenario or something like this will happen in the next few years.
That and lazy copy editors.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveward/
Incidentally, he researched this very carefully and the type face is exact (found interviews with LucasFilm folks where the font are discussed.) He also did very meticulous work getting the perspective of the text, the color and the leading correct. It's not the real thing, but it sure looks like it.
The iPod's success is all about the entire experience not just the player. That's why all these wannabes will fail--including Microsoft--because they think that being good at one part of the whole picture is good enough. It isn't. If it were, companies doing this stuff would have taken off long before the iPod and iTunes came along. Apple's real coup was recognizing that nobody offered a whole, integrated experience and and how much that would change things. Good for them. It's good to see a tech company realize that people, for the most part, don't give a rip about the technology, just whether the damn thing works like it should and if it's designed well.
One other thing to remember is that the iPod and iTunes branding is phenomenal. "Branding" is a hot buzzword amongst marketing folks right now, and believe me, the iPod/iTunes branding is a marketing person's wet dream. An Apple branded iPod player will wipe out the low-end player segment easily even if it's an inferior product.
However, if the product is quality (and I suspect it is) Apple will have loads of converts. Creative understands all this, thus the public noisemaking. They're trying to do pre-emptive damage control. I don't blame 'em, but as with Real, I think it's too little, too late.
Now, rewrite your post pointing out where and how Apple has used its so-called monopoly power to walk over competitors and create unfair playing fields or situations where honest competition cannot happen. Oh, and the perception by a third party that there is no incentive is not the result of Apple abusing their "monopoly." And neither is Apple stealing ideas for Sherlock and Dashboard or whatever from small developers. Those developers could have patented their ideas and staved off such a move. Copying someone's unprotected idea is fair game in business. That's all fair (not very nice, I've give you, but fair nonetheless.) However, if Apple were actively undermining the efforts of their competitors by using their monopoly power in a behind-the-scenes way, that would be illegal.
That's what Microsoft was accused of doing and summarily found guilty of. The bundling of software by MS wasn't illegal per se but was rather pinpointed as part of the way MS kept competitors at bay.
Just being a monopoly isn't illegal at all, and in fact, in some situations, the government supports a monopoly in order to further a given technology or product. I think we can all agree that the government-sanctioned monopoly on telephone services served a purpose at one time in history.