Cartoon characters (even human ones) don't suffer from this because they are stylized enough to allow us to suspend our expectations of reality and just see them for what they represent. This is the main reason the big companies stick to stylized characters in cartoony situations; they don't have to worry about trying to simulate reality.
However, using cartoony characters (i.e. Shrek, Pixar films) requires you to spend a lot of time at the other end of the spectrum. In other words, you have to work hard to make sure that your simulation of what is not reality, but instead exagerated physical activity, still meets up with the audience's expectations. Expectations based on what they've grown up with.
One example I remember hearing about is when they needed to make a character sneak across the screen. Using the cartoony body with human-like sneaking did not make any sense at all. Sure, it was realistic looking for a human, but it wasn't "realistic looking" for the simulated character. Instead, you have to kind of make them stand on tippy toes, stick out their butt, pronounce the forward extension of their neck and head, etc.
Of course, doing all that is probably easier anyway since there's most likely a lot more leeway as to what the audience will accept when you're working with exagerations.
Oh please. Anyone who is capable of earning a University degree, old or young, is quite clearly capable of learning... after all, at least when I went through Uni, we had to learn to get the damn degree in the first place!
I'd have to disagree with this. Sure, they had to learn a lot of stuff, but the ability to learn, problem solve, invent, etc. is not something that anyone who earned a Bachelors can necessarily do. Neither are other qualities, like perseverence (spelling?), curiosity, composition, writing, etc.
If you need proof, compare a CS student from, say UC Berkeley, with one from say, UC Irvine. Don't mean to put down UC Irvine, but there is a big difference. And then compare a UC Berkeley student who only took a few CS courses with one that took a lot. Again, big difference.
Another good example is asking someone to program in a language they've never used before, and sit them in front of a computer with a language reference. The ones who really understand things know that syntax is just syntax. The ones who don't understand will mess everything up.
Yes, let the kid spend two days, working 12-hour days, doing what an experienced senior developer can handle with aplomb in 2 hours. Let the geezer go home to supper! He's getting far more work done!
Looking productive and being productive are two different things. Guess which is more important to the outside observer? Guess which looks better when the boss walks by?
Also, the survey you link to makes this note: "The perceived differences at 128 kbps were already very small." In other words, at 128kbps, the ranking they give could be statistically insignificant. We don't see any numbers, and it's noted at the end of the article that the c't report is not available online. We also don't see any specifics as to where the quality deviated. Or as to the test setup, the audio samples (self-selected? please), etc.
I am also very skeptical of this ranking, which places 128kbps MP3 above 128kbps AAC and at the same time says that the difference was very small. Maybe this works since the listeners did not actually listen for deviations from the original, just their overall impression. I also think I remember reading that WMA "improved" perceived quality by adjusting the volume, because typical listeners associate that with a better sound. That does not mean it encoded with high fidelity.
Now, ranking based on overall impression is fine, since that's what you want to optimize for anyway. But fidelity is also very important.
In 2003, I have a 2.2HGz CPU (88 times faster), 1024MB of RAM (128 times more), a 120GB hard drive (180 times more), 700MB CD-RWs (243 times bigger) yet only a 1Mbit (on a really good day!) network connection (about 35 times faster, no matter what the cable company claims.) And that's as fast as it has been for about 5 years now.
How about if instead of having telecoms purchase the fatter pipes, we have end consumers purchase the fatter pipes. That is, instead of you waiting for the bandwidth and physical infrastructure to become available and then buying use time, you as an end user purchase the hardware and software to incorporate the bandwidth and physical infrastructure.
Now maybe you can see that you're talking about two different product worlds here. I can buy and install the hardware and software for 1Gbps Ethernet because that will all sit inside my room. It's a bit more expensive and complicated to buy and install the hardware and software necessary to communicate at 1Gbps with someplace else. But I could, with a lot of CAT5e, repeaters, and Cisco hardware. If that wasn't against zoning laws, required me to run stuff on other people's property, or required me to negotiate some sort of deal with whoever is on the other end of my RJ-45 jack.
The 60GB Nomad will hold the same number of songs as the 30GB iPod. If you consider that the Nomad must have 256Kbps MP3 for CD-quality, and the iPod must have 128Kbps AAC for CD-quality. (Standard disclaimer on the abilities of audiophiles.)
So, given that, you're on equal footing as far as storage goes. Now you just have to decide if $100 is worth the other features of the iPod. e.g. size, UI, extras.
Remember that MacBidouille has a history of inaccurate rumors... remember their AMD rumor earlier this year. Check out their rating at www.macrumors.com
I find it very hard to believe that a rumor consists of hardware benchmarks.
Microsoft thinks that this is a good way to control the "entire" user experience. This isn't a new goal for Microsoft. It's just their execution that is lacking.
Or maybe this is their way of raking in the micropayments. Just imagine how valuable certain household commodities can be when you're stuck in a public porta-potty. Microsoft is just ensuring that they're the first and preferred choice when you need what you need.
The kind of article/interview that would put anyone off Gibson forever. I'm so glad i just finished reading the brilliant Virtual Light trilogy, before finding out that he visits bbc, cnn and google. If those were the most interesting sites he could think of, it probably means he sticks to surfing pr0n only.
I fail to see what his choice of news sources has to do with his ability to write well. Does knowing that he prefers to visit CCN, BBC, or Google somehow make you enjoy his books less? If so, I think you didn't learn to read the right way.
A number after 48 hours is probably going to be a lot better indicator of launch success than 18 hours, simply because there were so many initial problems the first day. I couldn't even sign in correctly until several hours after the launch because of extremely high demand. And it took some people a few days (judging by the Apple discussion boards) to get their existing Apple ID accounts in order so as it log in.
I myself have purchased 4 albums and 1 single. I have another 3 singles and 6 albums sitting in my shopping cart, waiting on my decision to buy.
I don't know about a virus, but a trojan. Remember that trojan that used AppleScript to remotely control a Mac? Well, you could do the same thing, since iTunes is scriptable. While I doubt you can force the purchase, you are probably able to open an itms: location prompting the user to purchase.
Be sure to make regular backups of your music files (in your iTunes Music folder) by copying them to an external hard disk or other media. If your hard disk becomes damaged or you lose any of the music you've purchased, you'll have to reimport all your songs and buy any purchased music again to rebuild your library. You can also make an audio CD of the songs you purchase so you can listen to them in a consumer CD player.
That said, all purchases are saved in your account: iTunes 4: How to View Purchase History. Makes me wonder why you have to re-purchase any music that you've lost. The FairPlay system should still be enforcing the 3 computer limit. Although that might be the problem: purchase 1000 songs, deauthorize, tell friend Apple ID (after removing your credit card information or something), friend authorizes, downloads 1000 songs. Who knows.
If you are purchasing using 1-Click, your order may be authorized and billed in gradual increments during one purchasing session as you click the "Buy Now" button. Depending on the size of your order, this may appear as multiple orders and billings on your credit card statement.
If you use the Shopping Cart functionality, you will have one order that authorizes and bills as a single purchase.
iTunes Music Store purchases will include sales tax based on the bill-to address and the sales tax rate in effect at the time of download. If the sales tax rate for the billing address changes before the song is downloaded, the new tax rate in effect at the time of download will apply. We will only charge tax in states where music downloads are taxable. No customers are eligible for tax exemptions for purchases made on the iTunes Music Store.
Please, please be careful how you use this MP3 player. You really don't want to stick the wrong end into your ear. Although this might make for a good "it was an accident" excuse.
The truth is that we (the general public) really have no idea how innovative Microsoft Windows really is. This is because the OS is closed. Ballmer is correct when he disparages Linux because of its 20 year old design. There have been a lot of improvements, but the basic kernel and OS design decisions are the same as ones made 20 years ago. What would be innovative would be the inclusion of OS research over the years. I'm afraid Linux hasn't made huge strides there, although I'm no expert on Linux so I couldn't say that with a high degree of confidence. The internals of Windows could be very innovative from the perspective of OS researchers. Only the researchers who work at or with Microsoft could say.
Remember, UNIX (monolithic) was first, and there have been lots of other approaches to kernels since then. Microkernels (e.g. Mach, now in Mac OS X), Extensible, Exokernels, Virtual Machines, etc. Linux is still essentially a monolithic kernel, since if you want to change how something like VM works, you have to recompile new code in and reboot.
And as far as security concerns go, I must not have a very clear grasp of the dilemma. Why is it that a sysadmin, when managing his or her network, would not be able to configure all NAT devices to only forward packets from verified, trusted, statically routed hosts? There are a wealth of hardware and software solutions available, it seems to me.
There are still a lot of situations where you want DHCP to do things. School campuses are one good example. Small businesses might find DHCP a lot easier to deal with. Wi-Fi is another, since you don't want to give every user their own IP address and can't bother to register everyone's MAC address if the network is "kind-of" open. Fact is, these other technologies and configurations exist because there are real uses for them.
In the case they provide of the illicit NAT box with host A and B behind them, you can make iptables re-write the IP header's TTL value to whatever you like for packets that were NATed. To the switch and the sFlow box, these NATed packets would appear the same as packets sourced from the NAT box.
So while this technique will foil the casual NATter's attempts, anyone with a little time on their hands, and a little knowledge can circumvent these detection methods.
Yeah, but with specific regards to the wireless router, what you want to do is prevent people from sticking unauthorized wireless access points on the network. Letting the bad guy outside do something inside would require a person on the inside collaborating.
You also don't want people letting their friends or other unauthorized people access your network resources. There would presumeably be severe consequences to an employee or whoever who did this (regardless of rewriting the headers).
A lot of the posters have been talking about how this technique would be used to prevent end-users from providing access to multiple machines in an attempt to charge more for bandwidth. But people who have read the actual paper will note this phrase: "Unauthorized NAT (Network Address Translation) devices can be a significant security problem."
One purpose of this paper is to provide a tool that can address security concerns. And yes, NAT does make it more difficult to police the machines behind the NAT. One reason: "Wi-Fi is a particular problem since it allows access to the network from a considerable distance, allowing unauthorized access without even entering the building."
This paper never once talks about a problem where NAT users are going to eat up too much bandwidth. Another quote: "In this network the administrative policy is for host computers to be directly connected to the distribution switches, as is shown by Host C. Two hosts, A and B, are connected to the distribution switch through an illicit NAT router." Note the words "administrative policy".
I guess this answers all of the speculative questions on when the PS3 will be able to come out. If Toshiba needs four years for its 65nm production lines, then 2007 is the earliest point that wafers could start coming off the line. So Christmas 2007? Looks like the PS2 still has a very long life ahead of it.
Cocoa is an application framework. It will not make things faster or better or whatever, If a Carbon app is optimized it will run as fast or faster then Cocoa apps (e.g. The Finder).
My rudimentary understanding of Carbon and Foundation event handling is that Carbon needs to poll (albeit that the call doesn't return until the event you want occurs) and Foundation doesn't. Perhaps things are done in the same way underneath, but I couldn't say.
Instead of trying to say both genders are equal, why not try this radical approach: accept that one gender has advantages over the other in some areas, and vice versa in others, and use those differences for the greater good!
Because this is/., and most people here can't use the differences for "the greater good". Wink, wink.
Slashdot Mirror
Cartoon characters (even human ones) don't suffer from this because they are stylized enough to allow us to suspend our expectations of reality and just see them for what they represent. This is the main reason the big companies stick to stylized characters in cartoony situations; they don't have to worry about trying to simulate reality.
However, using cartoony characters (i.e. Shrek, Pixar films) requires you to spend a lot of time at the other end of the spectrum. In other words, you have to work hard to make sure that your simulation of what is not reality, but instead exagerated physical activity, still meets up with the audience's expectations. Expectations based on what they've grown up with.
One example I remember hearing about is when they needed to make a character sneak across the screen. Using the cartoony body with human-like sneaking did not make any sense at all. Sure, it was realistic looking for a human, but it wasn't "realistic looking" for the simulated character. Instead, you have to kind of make them stand on tippy toes, stick out their butt, pronounce the forward extension of their neck and head, etc.
Of course, doing all that is probably easier anyway since there's most likely a lot more leeway as to what the audience will accept when you're working with exagerations.
Oh please. Anyone who is capable of earning a University degree, old or young, is quite clearly capable of learning... after all, at least when I went through Uni, we had to learn to get the damn degree in the first place!
I'd have to disagree with this. Sure, they had to learn a lot of stuff, but the ability to learn, problem solve, invent, etc. is not something that anyone who earned a Bachelors can necessarily do. Neither are other qualities, like perseverence (spelling?), curiosity, composition, writing, etc.
If you need proof, compare a CS student from, say UC Berkeley, with one from say, UC Irvine. Don't mean to put down UC Irvine, but there is a big difference. And then compare a UC Berkeley student who only took a few CS courses with one that took a lot. Again, big difference.
Another good example is asking someone to program in a language they've never used before, and sit them in front of a computer with a language reference. The ones who really understand things know that syntax is just syntax. The ones who don't understand will mess everything up.
Yes, let the kid spend two days, working 12-hour days, doing what an experienced senior developer can handle with aplomb in 2 hours. Let the geezer go home to supper! He's getting far more work done!
Looking productive and being productive are two different things. Guess which is more important to the outside observer? Guess which looks better when the boss walks by?
Here's the official MPEG-2 AAC quality report: http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/project/mpeg/audio/ public/w2006.html. MPEG-4 AAC is based on MPEG-2 AAC (but admitedly different) with what is claimed to be a 30% improvement.
Also, the survey you link to makes this note: "The perceived differences at 128 kbps were already very small." In other words, at 128kbps, the ranking they give could be statistically insignificant. We don't see any numbers, and it's noted at the end of the article that the c't report is not available online. We also don't see any specifics as to where the quality deviated. Or as to the test setup, the audio samples (self-selected? please), etc.
I am also very skeptical of this ranking, which places 128kbps MP3 above 128kbps AAC and at the same time says that the difference was very small. Maybe this works since the listeners did not actually listen for deviations from the original, just their overall impression. I also think I remember reading that WMA "improved" perceived quality by adjusting the volume, because typical listeners associate that with a better sound. That does not mean it encoded with high fidelity.
Now, ranking based on overall impression is fine, since that's what you want to optimize for anyway. But fidelity is also very important.
In 2003, I have a 2.2HGz CPU (88 times faster), 1024MB of RAM (128 times more), a 120GB hard drive (180 times more), 700MB CD-RWs (243 times bigger) yet only a 1Mbit (on a really good day!) network connection (about 35 times faster, no matter what the cable company claims.) And that's as fast as it has been for about 5 years now.
How about if instead of having telecoms purchase the fatter pipes, we have end consumers purchase the fatter pipes. That is, instead of you waiting for the bandwidth and physical infrastructure to become available and then buying use time, you as an end user purchase the hardware and software to incorporate the bandwidth and physical infrastructure.
Now maybe you can see that you're talking about two different product worlds here. I can buy and install the hardware and software for 1Gbps Ethernet because that will all sit inside my room. It's a bit more expensive and complicated to buy and install the hardware and software necessary to communicate at 1Gbps with someplace else. But I could, with a lot of CAT5e, repeaters, and Cisco hardware. If that wasn't against zoning laws, required me to run stuff on other people's property, or required me to negotiate some sort of deal with whoever is on the other end of my RJ-45 jack.
The 60GB Nomad will hold the same number of songs as the 30GB iPod. If you consider that the Nomad must have 256Kbps MP3 for CD-quality, and the iPod must have 128Kbps AAC for CD-quality. (Standard disclaimer on the abilities of audiophiles.)
So, given that, you're on equal footing as far as storage goes. Now you just have to decide if $100 is worth the other features of the iPod. e.g. size, UI, extras.
Remember that MacBidouille has a history of inaccurate rumors... remember their AMD rumor earlier this year. Check out their rating at www.macrumors.com
I find it very hard to believe that a rumor consists of hardware benchmarks.
Microsoft thinks that this is a good way to control the "entire" user experience. This isn't a new goal for Microsoft. It's just their execution that is lacking.
Or maybe this is their way of raking in the micropayments. Just imagine how valuable certain household commodities can be when you're stuck in a public porta-potty. Microsoft is just ensuring that they're the first and preferred choice when you need what you need.
The kind of article/interview that would put anyone off Gibson forever. I'm so glad i just finished reading the brilliant Virtual Light trilogy, before finding out that he visits bbc, cnn and google. If those were the most interesting sites he could think of, it probably means he sticks to surfing pr0n only.
I fail to see what his choice of news sources has to do with his ability to write well. Does knowing that he prefers to visit CCN, BBC, or Google somehow make you enjoy his books less? If so, I think you didn't learn to read the right way.
A number after 48 hours is probably going to be a lot better indicator of launch success than 18 hours, simply because there were so many initial problems the first day. I couldn't even sign in correctly until several hours after the launch because of extremely high demand. And it took some people a few days (judging by the Apple discussion boards) to get their existing Apple ID accounts in order so as it log in.
I myself have purchased 4 albums and 1 single. I have another 3 singles and 6 albums sitting in my shopping cart, waiting on my decision to buy.
I don't know about a virus, but a trojan. Remember that trojan that used AppleScript to remotely control a Mac? Well, you could do the same thing, since iTunes is scriptable. While I doubt you can force the purchase, you are probably able to open an itms: location prompting the user to purchase.
Strawberry Shortcake!? Who's Strawberry Shortcake? Wasn't she some cartoon character I used to watch when I was like five? ;P
The cat looks a lot like the Cheshire Cat from American McGee's Alice.
Apple has people set up to deal with this. iTunes 4: How to Contact Music Store Billing Support.
From iTunes 4: How to Locate Downloaded Files:
Be sure to make regular backups of your music files (in your iTunes Music folder) by copying them to an external hard disk or other media. If your hard disk becomes damaged or you lose any of the music you've purchased, you'll have to reimport all your songs and buy any purchased music again to rebuild your library. You can also make an audio CD of the songs you purchase so you can listen to them in a consumer CD player.
That said, all purchases are saved in your account: iTunes 4: How to View Purchase History. Makes me wonder why you have to re-purchase any music that you've lost. The FairPlay system should still be enforcing the 3 computer limit. Although that might be the problem: purchase 1000 songs, deauthorize, tell friend Apple ID (after removing your credit card information or something), friend authorizes, downloads 1000 songs. Who knows.
From the iTunes Terms of Sale:
If you are purchasing using 1-Click, your order may be authorized and billed in gradual increments during one purchasing session as you click the "Buy Now" button. Depending on the size of your order, this may appear as multiple orders and billings on your credit card statement.
If you use the Shopping Cart functionality, you will have one order that authorizes and bills as a single purchase.
iTunes Music Store purchases will include sales tax based on the bill-to address and the sales tax rate in effect at the time of download. If the sales tax rate for the billing address changes before the song is downloaded, the new tax rate in effect at the time of download will apply. We will only charge tax in states where music downloads are taxable. No customers are eligible for tax exemptions for purchases made on the iTunes Music Store.
Please, please be careful how you use this MP3 player. You really don't want to stick the wrong end into your ear. Although this might make for a good "it was an accident" excuse.
The truth is that we (the general public) really have no idea how innovative Microsoft Windows really is. This is because the OS is closed. Ballmer is correct when he disparages Linux because of its 20 year old design. There have been a lot of improvements, but the basic kernel and OS design decisions are the same as ones made 20 years ago. What would be innovative would be the inclusion of OS research over the years. I'm afraid Linux hasn't made huge strides there, although I'm no expert on Linux so I couldn't say that with a high degree of confidence. The internals of Windows could be very innovative from the perspective of OS researchers. Only the researchers who work at or with Microsoft could say.
Remember, UNIX (monolithic) was first, and there have been lots of other approaches to kernels since then. Microkernels (e.g. Mach, now in Mac OS X), Extensible, Exokernels, Virtual Machines, etc. Linux is still essentially a monolithic kernel, since if you want to change how something like VM works, you have to recompile new code in and reboot.
And as far as security concerns go, I must not have a very clear grasp of the dilemma. Why is it that a sysadmin, when managing his or her network, would not be able to configure all NAT devices to only forward packets from verified, trusted, statically routed hosts? There are a wealth of hardware and software solutions available, it seems to me.
There are still a lot of situations where you want DHCP to do things. School campuses are one good example. Small businesses might find DHCP a lot easier to deal with. Wi-Fi is another, since you don't want to give every user their own IP address and can't bother to register everyone's MAC address if the network is "kind-of" open. Fact is, these other technologies and configurations exist because there are real uses for them.
In the case they provide of the illicit NAT box with host A and B behind them, you can make iptables re-write the IP header's TTL value to whatever you like for packets that were NATed. To the switch and the sFlow box, these NATed packets would appear the same as packets sourced from the NAT box.
So while this technique will foil the casual NATter's attempts, anyone with a little time on their hands, and a little knowledge can circumvent these detection methods.
Yeah, but with specific regards to the wireless router, what you want to do is prevent people from sticking unauthorized wireless access points on the network. Letting the bad guy outside do something inside would require a person on the inside collaborating.
You also don't want people letting their friends or other unauthorized people access your network resources. There would presumeably be severe consequences to an employee or whoever who did this (regardless of rewriting the headers).
A lot of the posters have been talking about how this technique would be used to prevent end-users from providing access to multiple machines in an attempt to charge more for bandwidth. But people who have read the actual paper will note this phrase: "Unauthorized NAT (Network Address Translation) devices can be a significant security problem."
One purpose of this paper is to provide a tool that can address security concerns. And yes, NAT does make it more difficult to police the machines behind the NAT. One reason: "Wi-Fi is a particular problem since it allows access to the network from a considerable distance, allowing unauthorized access without even entering the building."
This paper never once talks about a problem where NAT users are going to eat up too much bandwidth. Another quote: "In this network the administrative policy is for host computers to be directly connected to the distribution switches, as is shown by Host C. Two hosts, A and B, are connected to the distribution switch through an illicit NAT router." Note the words "administrative policy".
Hm. I just saw those other comments about not using the Cell in the PS3. Guess that's what I get for not buying all those gaming magazines.
I guess this answers all of the speculative questions on when the PS3 will be able to come out. If Toshiba needs four years for its 65nm production lines, then 2007 is the earliest point that wafers could start coming off the line. So Christmas 2007? Looks like the PS2 still has a very long life ahead of it.
Cocoa is an application framework. It will not make things faster or better or whatever, If a Carbon app is optimized it will run as fast or faster then Cocoa apps (e.g. The Finder).
My rudimentary understanding of Carbon and Foundation event handling is that Carbon needs to poll (albeit that the call doesn't return until the event you want occurs) and Foundation doesn't. Perhaps things are done in the same way underneath, but I couldn't say.
Instead of trying to say both genders are equal, why not try this radical approach: accept that one gender has advantages over the other in some areas, and vice versa in others, and use those differences for the greater good!
/., and most people here can't use the differences for "the greater good". Wink, wink.
Because this is
In fact, the world's economic systems have not been based on the gold standard [essortment.com] for over thirty years.
That'll teach me to listen to my high school teachers.