Our blender is 50 years old. It has two settings, "Usually enough" and "Always enough". The thing is built like a tank. I love it.
I have wanted to learn Blender (the software) for a long time. I've been an on-and-off avid POV-Rayer for more than 20 years (mostly off these days), and as much as I love POV-Ray, I wouldn't mind learning a powerful modeller with modern features, but every time I've sat down and started to mess around with Blender (or pretty much any other 3D package), I am quickly overwhelmed, and happy to go back doing everything with scripting.
I'll give it a whirl again some day, and maybe stick with it enough to make some progress. Blender is an amazing project and it would be great to be able take advantage of it to do cool stuff.
I'd say "That's not Microsoft, that's the government." except the government doesn't ask your opinion. They assume that because the country is ostensibly a democracy, you asked for it.
Frankly, I don't understand Microsoft's strategy with Windows 8 unless they are laying the groundwork for Metro to become the only choice, instead of the clumsily-tacked on new default. Let's face it, the OS/Office money fountain is drying up, and MS is having a hard time breaking into new markets because they still think it's the 1990s and they can do what they want and everyone will accept it ("Yeah, it sucks now, but in a few more versions it will be good." doesn't cut it any more).
That 30% cut Apple gets from every app sold probably looks like the only way to move forward. I'm sure MS wants everyone to get used to Metro and the apps it provides so they can start phasing out everything else over the next few years. Then they will have more of a monopoly than ever.... assuming anyone still uses Windows by then.
Well, I haven't tried Windows 8 yet, but Windows 7 constantly reminds me that it is not as fast as XP,, especially because my job has me doing a lot of stuff in a Windows 2003 VM in which I've noticed most everything runs faster than it does on Windows 7 _on the same machine_.
I have to agree. I've been a software developer for 25 years and I never had to do anything non-trivial with Office until I was asked to do some Excel programming a couple years ago. Partway into the process (pretty early on), the company updated to Office 2007, and I liked the ribbon. It's possibly the only thing I like about Office, but I found it to reasonably well-organized and not hard to get used to. It's a fair sight better than the completely arbitrary and capricious reorganization they seem to feel they need to do to the Control Panel with every new version of Windows.
Of course, aside from the ribbon, I found the whole experience to be amazingly reminiscent of Windows programming in the early 90s... except Windows 3.0 was a lot more stable and even plain old C was more powerful and flexible than Visual Basic. It was a pain to struggle to do things I knew were trivial in Win32. Then there was the fact that despite everyone in the company having the same initial load-out from IT, there were numerous compatibility problems with the same VBA app on the same version of Excel across different computers. Yes, some were XP and some were 7 but the differences did not cut across OS lines. It seemed to depend on what other ActiveX controls were installed (and I wasn't using anything weirder than the ListView and the Date Time picker, both introduced in _Windows 95_, and what printer drivers were installed.
I've used and designed a lot of UI over the years, and I'm extremely critical about it... but the ribbon did not tick me off. No UI is perfect, but when something manages not to piss me off, I consider that a success.
I have no intentions on running Windows 8 and would have migrated my main laptop from Windows 7 to Linux (like all my other machines) if it weren't for certain games.
I have to say, that's exactly what I would expect from Microsoft. They're sort of like certain people with respect to politics who are so wrapped up in their own little world and circle of friends it's not that they don't think theirs is the best way, but they literally cannot imagine how anyone could think any differently. Therefore, they come off as being incredibly out of touch and stand out like freaks, and it never occurs to them.
So instead of every three years we get a new version of Windows every year. Sounds great. Now we can look forward to an annual event that includes:
1. Explorer still sucks after 10^H^H^ 15^H^H 17^H^H 18 years and counting. Right click on a network drive... hourglass for 30 seconds, just like in Windows 95. 2. The Control Panel has been reorganized in yet another completely arbitrary way. 3. Still slower when copying files to network shares than Windows XP,.. or Kermit using two tin cans and a string. 4. All your software still runs faster in a Windows XP VM... on the same machine. 5. IE updated with features every other browser had 5 years ago. 6. WMP still doesn't play OGG files. 7. Windows Troubleshooting still never solves any problem. 8. Word still takes 30 seconds to load a document. 9. Outlook still takes a minute to load. 10. About once a week when you try to reopen an Excel document you just successfully saved, it warns you that it been corrupted and needs to be fixed. 11. Wireless network still sometimes gets wedged so hard you have to reboot to fix it, because the "Repair" feature, the single most useful feature ever added to Windows networking, was removed when Vista came out. 12. You get to pay for it!!!!
You know, having been forced to endure the use of Office 2007, including a fair bit of programming for Excel, I can say that the ribbon is about the only thing I don't hate about Office. Maybe it's because I never used it much without the ribbon, and, God willing, won't ever have to use it much again.
It's funny that this piece talks about Windows 8 being a Christmas gift for your enemies, because I've always said I wouldn't wish Microsoft Word on anyone, even my enemies.
Agreed. Microsoft has been a boat anchor on the software industry for too long. Look how things are improving in the markets where MS isn't the 800-pound gorilla (smartphones and tablets).
No, the D's say business is evil and go around forcing government on everyone. Safe effect, though.
What I can't figure out is why no one seems to understand that big government at least as bad as big business, except it makes the rules and doesn't need to make money. They are both destroying the country.
Meanwhile, the D's are big friends with Hollywood, so I doubt they would take advantage of this issue. They don't want copyright reform any more than the R's do. The only people who do want it are non-politicians who actually understand what essentially-infinite copyright does.
Wait, you're saying the problem is it's too easy to register a political party and it needs to be more expensive?! I don't get that logic.
Regardless, it's a math thing. The simple winner-take-all plurality type voting system pretty much guarantees you'll end up with a two-party system. If we had a different voting system, proportional, runoffs, ranking, etc, then a third party could actually thrive. But of course the hurdles facing this kind of reform guarantee that it will never happen.
1. You can't explain why an alternate voting system is better in a 7-second sound bite. 2. It would probably require a Constitutional amendment in order to implement. 3. The Republicrats have absolutely no incentive to do anything that would undermine their perpetual duopoly.
As it is, a third party candidate pretty much guarantees the election of the candidate from the Big Two who is least like him because he will merely siphon votes from the candidate who is most like him, because those are the people most likely to see the third party candidate as a good choice.
So voting third-party _is_ throwing away your vote from a game theory point of view. Sure, you can make a political statement, and I think that's a very American thing to do, but given that there is always at least one candidate in most people's opinion whose election would be a Very Bad Thing, there is almost always a strong incentive to vote against someone rather than for someone.
If you think the Big Two are equally bad, then a third party vote makes the most sense, but I don't think very many people think the Big Two are equally bad. I, for one, think they are both bad, but one is much worse, and I suspect most people see things the same way.
I know what you mean. I don't understand why people brag about Windows 7 being fast. I think it's a real dog, and certain apps, like Firefox (and don't get me started on Office, which is a whole circle of Hell all by itself) run much more poorly on 7 than they do under XP.
For legacy reasons, my development environment at work runs on Windows 2003, so we use a VM running on Windows 7 and the same version of Firefox is much faster in the VM than it is on the machine itself. Whether or not this is Mozilla doing something "wrong" or not, it's pretty sad when the same app runs significantly more slowly on the newer OS than the older.
Oh, and Explorer is still a steaming pile of goat spew. 17 years and counting. It always has a few small improvements, but never really gets faster or better. I'm betting I'll be a doddering old man firing up Windows 2050 on my 7 grouchohertz teracore quantum hyperpad and it will still sometimes give me 30 seconds of hourglass when I right click on a folder.
I knew right away that Windows 8 would be a steaming turd when Microsoft went with the fire sale pricing. The cost of Windows has been very consistent for over 20 years. I do recall getting Windows 3.0, or maybe it was 3.1 at a special price of $50, but that's the last time there was any kind of discount for Windows as far as I know. They could charge a good chunk of change for Windows because people would pay for it... especially businesses. But even they know they'll practically have to give Windows 8 away.
This is a big gamble for Microsoft. I'm going to enjoy watching them crash and burn. Of course, they are still as rich as Croesus, so they can still afford to crash and burn (like they did with Vista), and come back again, but it's satisfying nonetheless. Microsoft has so much bad karma coming to them for their business practices, user hostility and just general ass-hattedness.
They only dominate the business world because their monopoly is still relevant in that sphere. Anywhere they actually have competitors, they are like a dead whale on the beach.
Slashdot Mirror
Our blender is 50 years old. It has two settings, "Usually enough" and "Always enough". The thing is built like a tank. I love it.
I have wanted to learn Blender (the software) for a long time. I've been an on-and-off avid POV-Rayer for more than 20 years (mostly off these days), and as much as I love POV-Ray, I wouldn't mind learning a powerful modeller with modern features, but every time I've sat down and started to mess around with Blender (or pretty much any other 3D package), I am quickly overwhelmed, and happy to go back doing everything with scripting.
I'll give it a whirl again some day, and maybe stick with it enough to make some progress. Blender is an amazing project and it would be great to be able take advantage of it to do cool stuff.
I'd say "That's not Microsoft, that's the government." except the government doesn't ask your opinion. They assume that because the country is ostensibly a democracy, you asked for it.
Frankly, I don't understand Microsoft's strategy with Windows 8 unless they are laying the groundwork for Metro to become the only choice, instead of the clumsily-tacked on new default. Let's face it, the OS/Office money fountain is drying up, and MS is having a hard time breaking into new markets because they still think it's the 1990s and they can do what they want and everyone will accept it ("Yeah, it sucks now, but in a few more versions it will be good." doesn't cut it any more).
That 30% cut Apple gets from every app sold probably looks like the only way to move forward. I'm sure MS wants everyone to get used to Metro and the apps it provides so they can start phasing out everything else over the next few years. Then they will have more of a monopoly than ever.... assuming anyone still uses Windows by then.
My shoes are filled with coins. I'm good for the season!
Well, I haven't tried Windows 8 yet, but Windows 7 constantly reminds me that it is not as fast as XP,, especially because my job has me doing a lot of stuff in a Windows 2003 VM in which I've noticed most everything runs faster than it does on Windows 7 _on the same machine_.
I have to agree. I've been a software developer for 25 years and I never had to do anything non-trivial with Office until I was asked to do some Excel programming a couple years ago. Partway into the process (pretty early on), the company updated to Office 2007, and I liked the ribbon. It's possibly the only thing I like about Office, but I found it to reasonably well-organized and not hard to get used to. It's a fair sight better than the completely arbitrary and capricious reorganization they seem to feel they need to do to the Control Panel with every new version of Windows.
Of course, aside from the ribbon, I found the whole experience to be amazingly reminiscent of Windows programming in the early 90s... except Windows 3.0 was a lot more stable and even plain old C was more powerful and flexible than Visual Basic. It was a pain to struggle to do things I knew were trivial in Win32. Then there was the fact that despite everyone in the company having the same initial load-out from IT, there were numerous compatibility problems with the same VBA app on the same version of Excel across different computers. Yes, some were XP and some were 7 but the differences did not cut across OS lines. It seemed to depend on what other ActiveX controls were installed (and I wasn't using anything weirder than the ListView and the Date Time picker, both introduced in _Windows 95_, and what printer drivers were installed.
I've used and designed a lot of UI over the years, and I'm extremely critical about it... but the ribbon did not tick me off. No UI is perfect, but when something manages not to piss me off, I consider that a success.
I have no intentions on running Windows 8 and would have migrated my main laptop from Windows 7 to Linux (like all my other machines) if it weren't for certain games.
I have to say, that's exactly what I would expect from Microsoft. They're sort of like certain people with respect to politics who are so wrapped up in their own little world and circle of friends it's not that they don't think theirs is the best way, but they literally cannot imagine how anyone could think any differently. Therefore, they come off as being incredibly out of touch and stand out like freaks, and it never occurs to them.
So instead of every three years we get a new version of Windows every year. Sounds great. Now we can look forward to an annual event that includes:
1. Explorer still sucks after 10^H^H^ 15^H^H 17^H^H 18 years and counting. Right click on a network drive... hourglass for 30 seconds, just like in Windows 95.
2. The Control Panel has been reorganized in yet another completely arbitrary way.
3. Still slower when copying files to network shares than Windows XP,.. or Kermit using two tin cans and a string.
4. All your software still runs faster in a Windows XP VM... on the same machine.
5. IE updated with features every other browser had 5 years ago.
6. WMP still doesn't play OGG files.
7. Windows Troubleshooting still never solves any problem.
8. Word still takes 30 seconds to load a document.
9. Outlook still takes a minute to load.
10. About once a week when you try to reopen an Excel document you just successfully saved, it warns you that it been corrupted and needs to be fixed.
11. Wireless network still sometimes gets wedged so hard you have to reboot to fix it, because the "Repair" feature, the single most useful feature ever added to Windows networking, was removed when Vista came out.
12. You get to pay for it!!!!
You know, having been forced to endure the use of Office 2007, including a fair bit of programming for Excel, I can say that the ribbon is about the only thing I don't hate about Office. Maybe it's because I never used it much without the ribbon, and, God willing, won't ever have to use it much again.
It's funny that this piece talks about Windows 8 being a Christmas gift for your enemies, because I've always said I wouldn't wish Microsoft Word on anyone, even my enemies.
Agreed. Microsoft has been a boat anchor on the software industry for too long. Look how things are improving in the markets where MS isn't the 800-pound gorilla (smartphones and tablets).
No, the D's say business is evil and go around forcing government on everyone. Safe effect, though.
What I can't figure out is why no one seems to understand that big government at least as bad as big business, except it makes the rules and doesn't need to make money. They are both destroying the country.
Meanwhile, the D's are big friends with Hollywood, so I doubt they would take advantage of this issue. They don't want copyright reform any more than the R's do. The only people who do want it are non-politicians who actually understand what essentially-infinite copyright does.
Lo, and behold, what should show up on Hacker News right as we are talking about it: A detailed explanation!
Wait, you're saying the problem is it's too easy to register a political party and it needs to be more expensive?! I don't get that logic.
Regardless, it's a math thing. The simple winner-take-all plurality type voting system pretty much guarantees you'll end up with a two-party system. If we had a different voting system, proportional, runoffs, ranking, etc, then a third party could actually thrive. But of course the hurdles facing this kind of reform guarantee that it will never happen.
1. You can't explain why an alternate voting system is better in a 7-second sound bite.
2. It would probably require a Constitutional amendment in order to implement.
3. The Republicrats have absolutely no incentive to do anything that would undermine their perpetual duopoly.
As it is, a third party candidate pretty much guarantees the election of the candidate from the Big Two who is least like him because he will merely siphon votes from the candidate who is most like him, because those are the people most likely to see the third party candidate as a good choice.
So voting third-party _is_ throwing away your vote from a game theory point of view. Sure, you can make a political statement, and I think that's a very American thing to do, but given that there is always at least one candidate in most people's opinion whose election would be a Very Bad Thing, there is almost always a strong incentive to vote against someone rather than for someone.
If you think the Big Two are equally bad, then a third party vote makes the most sense, but I don't think very many people think the Big Two are equally bad. I, for one, think they are both bad, but one is much worse, and I suspect most people see things the same way.
Americans used to be all about freedom. Actually, we still are if you understand that the majority of the citizens don't know what freedom is.
It's sort of like the Prisoner's Dilemma writ large. It's throwing your vote away to vote 3rd party unless 50 million other people do it too.
I know what you mean. I don't understand why people brag about Windows 7 being fast. I think it's a real dog, and certain apps, like Firefox (and don't get me started on Office, which is a whole circle of Hell all by itself) run much more poorly on 7 than they do under XP.
For legacy reasons, my development environment at work runs on Windows 2003, so we use a VM running on Windows 7 and the same version of Firefox is much faster in the VM than it is on the machine itself. Whether or not this is Mozilla doing something "wrong" or not, it's pretty sad when the same app runs significantly more slowly on the newer OS than the older.
Oh, and Explorer is still a steaming pile of goat spew. 17 years and counting. It always has a few small improvements, but never really gets faster or better. I'm betting I'll be a doddering old man firing up Windows 2050 on my 7 grouchohertz teracore quantum hyperpad and it will still sometimes give me 30 seconds of hourglass when I right click on a folder.
I knew right away that Windows 8 would be a steaming turd when Microsoft went with the fire sale pricing. The cost of Windows has been very consistent for over 20 years. I do recall getting Windows 3.0, or maybe it was 3.1 at a special price of $50, but that's the last time there was any kind of discount for Windows as far as I know. They could charge a good chunk of change for Windows because people would pay for it... especially businesses. But even they know they'll practically have to give Windows 8 away.
This is a big gamble for Microsoft. I'm going to enjoy watching them crash and burn. Of course, they are still as rich as Croesus, so they can still afford to crash and burn (like they did with Vista), and come back again, but it's satisfying nonetheless. Microsoft has so much bad karma coming to them for their business practices, user hostility and just general ass-hattedness.
Hulu Plus is another one. When you pay them, they basically take part of their service away from you.
That is the best misuse of an apostrophe I have ever seen. You, sir, win an Internet.
So Minesweeper is now bigger than all of Windows was when it was first introduced. Way to be Microsoft. You are really innovating.
They only dominate the business world because their monopoly is still relevant in that sphere. Anywhere they actually have competitors, they are like a dead whale on the beach.
There's a difference. Apple can learn and adapt. Microsoft can't.
I know what you mean... Disney is to entertainment what Microsoft is to software, and yet almost everyone here sees this as something good.
More consolidation in the media industry is NEVER good.
And people have been getting away with that joke for a hundred years now, and art critics continue to lap it up.
Excellent: We'll equip the pilots with Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses!
Don't forget the Masons. He kiped a lot ritual and other material from the Masons.
I always thought it was a shame Mormonism didn't come a century later, because then it would have had UFOs, too.