I haven't used a Mac since 1998. Split between various flavors of of Windows and Linux
Both my laptop and desktop have FireWire. Neither were top of the line.
Ogg matters not, since almost nothing supports it.
AAC vs. WMA matters only because one of these two formats will ultimately win the online sales war. At least in the near term.
Speaking of sales war, you choose to mention Mac's 4% market share, but you hold market share of the iPod and iTMS in disdain. Nice consistency to your logic.
Yeah, I read the specs. 4GB player. One is $249, one will be $209. One plays AAC, the other plays WMA and some weird bullshit format that almost nobody knows about.
Have no idea about IE. Haven't used it since Mozilla 09.b
In any case, the parent to my post (and all the other people living in terror of cookies) is just lame.
Re:The real problem is simple...
on
iPod Mini Sells Out
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Dude, yer sooooo coool. I wish I could rail against Apple/Jobs with all your self-righteousness.
I will never understand how people can be talked into spending enormous sums on an inferior product through a snazzy marketing campaign.
No kidding. For $170, I can get a 1.5 GB Nitrus. For only $80 more (less than 50% increase in price) I can get a product with about 240% more capacity (the iPod mini).
"Oh, but what about the Muvo2?" According to Amazon, it's not yet available.
So, for $50, I get a better looking unit (arguable, I agree) FireWire support, AAC support (you can tout WMA all you want, but when the vast, vast majority of online sales are AAC, I could care less about WMA) And I don't have to explain to the average person why I bought such a ghetto player.
Sorry, but there is nothing standout between the iPod and the Rio offerings from a purely objective standpoint. Judging by the sellout of the first run, $50 doesn't mean anything to people in this marketplace, so the choice of one over the other is purely subjective. Trying to pretend otherwise just makes you look like a whiner.
And when the iPod mini gets to 12GB capacity, your music collection will have probably grown past it;).
My collection has been stuck at about 25 gigs for a while. I don't forsee it growing by leaps and bounds. There ain't much new stuff, and I don't have the drive (heh, no pun intended) to fill out my back catalogs.
I guess their strategy now is to stay one step ahead of everyone who tries to copy them. It seems to be working, at least for now.
And it will continue to work. Apple has an R&D budget: most of the PC makers don't (or it is insignificant in size, or lacks any kind of vision). As long as this remains the case, Apple will always have something 'different'.
(And spare me the MS to F/OSS comparisons. It costs much less to code up a new driver or window manager widget than it does to tool up production on an actual, physical object.)
If Fox didn't know what to do with it, they shouldn't have screwed around with it. They should have shown the pilot as the pilot. They should have shown the episodes in order, etc.
No, Fox *thought* they knew what to do, but obviously didn't.
It aired on broadcast television. About 75% of the citizens of the US can get broadcast television without the use of anything more technological than a piece of speaker cord hooked to an antenna balun. I did it for two years in college, and was far from the only person to do this.
Nope, I'm saying that Rush is a POS drug addict. He's a dope fiend. Sure, it was 'just' oxycontin, but having spent time around both crackheads and oxyheads (or whatever they are called) I can tell you that they behave almost identically when they need a high.
Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for a cigarette:)
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!
But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
None of this makes sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Huh. A children's story (a modern fairy tale or something I believe Lucas called it) with a simplistic, childish story. Amazing.
The only reason it was popular, in my estimation, is that we were all young then and didn't see how much it sucked and were wowed by the special effects and nifty characters.
And these nifty characters sprang for what magical ether? Oh, that's right, Lucas' pen. Have you seen the trite crap that passed for kids' movies in the 70's? Star Wars was light years beyond.
At least LOTR had good acting all around, the special effects were not the reason for making the movie have a "wow" factor, and the story was compelling and heavy.
Your point being? There are acting awards, FX awards, story awards, etc. What does any of this have to do with the direction? And what does any of that have to do with Jackson 'finally' getting the nod?
Lucas was simply in the right place at the right time.
With the right product. Same thing could be said for Jackson. He came along at a time when Lucas had already shown that big budget FX movies can make a shitpile of money. At a time when bigger names were tied up with other stuff. At a time when the Tolkien estate was ready to deal.
I recognize he spawned a whole industry, but the quality of the Star Wars movies do not merit a cookie, much less an Academy Award--contrary to all of the LOTR movies.
You haven't answered the questions I wanted answered. First, what particular bit of direction made Jackson's efforts better than, say, Sofia Coppola's? (Just to pick a name of the other contenders). Second, why is this some long delayed acknowledgement of Jackson's skill? What was better from a directing standpoint in Two Towers than in The Pianist? Fellowship... than Beautiful Mind.
I think the scope of each LOTR movie and how well each movie turned out merited best movie.
'Scope' is an awful way to decide what movie is 'best'. Which is harder, crunching numbers to create a billion pixillated orcs, or getting a compelling performance out of Jeff Spicoli? (I know that argument borders on reduxio ad absurdum, but try to see the meaning behind the hyperbole). But what does 'scope' have to do with anything? By that metric, why should the Academy have even considered Mystic River or Lost in Translation?
Hey, there's a reasonable comment about why he won (which I don't disagree with) but nowhere does it address the 'finally' comment. Like has been said for a few years, the reason he didn't win much for the first two was because people wanted to see how the whole thing turned out.
Lucas enters in because at the time of the writing, I noticed plenty of 'Jackson R001Z, Lucas suxx' comments.
The key word is 'little' computer. Very little. Probably only an IC or two. They crammed a controller for various USB antennas into a Slimp3 (among other things) so I can't imagine this would be prohibitive for a Roomba sized device.
Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award!
Why? Did you see the other nominated films? By what metric do you determine the 'best director'? If you feel he has been snubbed in the past, that's too bad. The nomination was for this film. (Yes, the voters have frequently righted past wrongs or close calls). A body of work award is typically rewarded specially, and much later in the career.
It's not as if Jackson is particularly old, either. So what is the reasoning behind the 'finally' comment? I just don't see it. There were plenty of good contenders. Nope, it boils down to plain old nerdish fanboyism.
And while I'm burning karma, perhaps the voters were actually thinking of G. Lucas when voting for Jackson. Sure, Jackson pumped out a couple of great movies, did wonders for product management, but Lucas helped define a genre and a generation, both in the insular world of Hollywood and in US culture in general. Yet he's never been 'blessed' by AMPAS, as space opera was too kiddyish. Here's the chance to correct that mistake.
Microsoft doesn't give a shit about burning bridges, because AMD, Intel and NVidia will all break their backs rebuilding them. How much weight does it carry if Ballmer calls up 'one of the gang' and says 'hey, buddy, because of some problems in your drivers we identified, your hardware will never work on Windows again'?
There's only been one console with backwards compatibility. It was a fluke. It may have pushed a few sales, but I doubt it was the defining element of the PS2's dominance. Further, how many purchases of XBox 2's are going to hinge on the massive (sic) library of wonderful XBox games?
Cat owners know that what belongs to the cat is the cats and what belongs to everyone else is still the cats.
Reminds me of this joke:
What is a Cat?
1. Cats do what they want. 2. They rarely listen to you. 3. They're totally unpredictable. 4. When you want to play, they want to be alone. 5. When you want to be alone, they want to play. 6. They expect you to cater to their every whim. 7. They're moody. 8. They leave hair everywhere. CONCLUSION: They're tiny women in little fur coats.
(And so as to provide something for the 0.00002% of slashdot that is female....)
What is a Dog?
1. Dogs spend all day sprawled on the most comfortable piece of furniture in the house. 2. They can hear a package of food opening half a block away, but don't hear you when you're in the same room. 3. They can look dumb and lovable all at the same time. 4. They growl when they are not happy. 5. When you want to play, they want to play. 6. When you want to be alone, they want to play. 7. They leave their toys everywhere. 8. They do disgusting things with their mouths and then try to give you a kiss. 9. They go right for your crotch as soon as they meet you. CONCLUSION: They're tiny men in little fur coats.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the only zealot here is the Rio fan.
Here's some troll chow:
I haven't used a Mac since 1998. Split between various flavors of of Windows and Linux
Both my laptop and desktop have FireWire. Neither were top of the line.
Ogg matters not, since almost nothing supports it.
AAC vs. WMA matters only because one of these two formats will ultimately win the online sales war. At least in the near term.
Speaking of sales war, you choose to mention Mac's 4% market share, but you hold market share of the iPod and iTMS in disdain. Nice consistency to your logic.
Yeah, I read the specs. 4GB player. One is $249, one will be $209. One plays AAC, the other plays WMA and some weird bullshit format that almost nobody knows about.
Have no idea about IE. Haven't used it since Mozilla 09.b
In any case, the parent to my post (and all the other people living in terror of cookies) is just lame.
Dude, yer sooooo coool. I wish I could rail against Apple/Jobs with all your self-righteousness.
I will never understand how people can be talked into spending enormous sums on an inferior product through a snazzy marketing campaign.
No kidding. For $170, I can get a 1.5 GB Nitrus. For only $80 more (less than 50% increase in price) I can get a product with about 240% more capacity (the iPod mini).
"Oh, but what about the Muvo2?" According to Amazon, it's not yet available.
So, for $50, I get a better looking unit (arguable, I agree) FireWire support, AAC support (you can tout WMA all you want, but when the vast, vast majority of online sales are AAC, I could care less about WMA) And I don't have to explain to the average person why I bought such a ghetto player.
Sorry, but there is nothing standout between the iPod and the Rio offerings from a purely objective standpoint. Judging by the sellout of the first run, $50 doesn't mean anything to people in this marketplace, so the choice of one over the other is purely subjective. Trying to pretend otherwise just makes you look like a whiner.
And when the iPod mini gets to 12GB capacity, your music collection will have probably grown past it ;).
My collection has been stuck at about 25 gigs for a while. I don't forsee it growing by leaps and bounds. There ain't much new stuff, and I don't have the drive (heh, no pun intended) to fill out my back catalogs.
I guess their strategy now is to stay one step ahead of everyone who tries to copy them. It seems to be working, at least for now.
And it will continue to work. Apple has an R&D budget: most of the PC makers don't (or it is insignificant in size, or lacks any kind of vision). As long as this remains the case, Apple will always have something 'different'.
(And spare me the MS to F/OSS comparisons. It costs much less to code up a new driver or window manager widget than it does to tool up production on an actual, physical object.)
My wife was annoyed as she bought a Beetle but being Canadian was screwed out of the free iPod :|.
Boy, talk about 'three strikes and you're out':
1) Canadian
2) Beetle owner, and now
3) No free iPod.
Real browsers let you block the capability to read cookies cross domain.
If Fox didn't know what to do with it, they shouldn't have screwed around with it. They should have shown the pilot as the pilot. They should have shown the episodes in order, etc.
No, Fox *thought* they knew what to do, but obviously didn't.
It aired on broadcast television. About 75% of the citizens of the US can get broadcast television without the use of anything more technological than a piece of speaker cord hooked to an antenna balun. I did it for two years in college, and was far from the only person to do this.
Nope, I'm saying that Rush is a POS drug addict. He's a dope fiend. Sure, it was 'just' oxycontin, but having spent time around both crackheads and oxyheads (or whatever they are called) I can tell you that they behave almost identically when they need a high.
Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for a cigarette:)
Must be something with the name, for I am also known as George, and the only times I knowingly read YRO articles is when they include a SCO icon.
And while he's at it, he should step away from the crack pipe.
Masturbation does NOT cover those areas.
He was just looking to add another excuse for his 20 session per day habit.
It was very simplistic, childish story,
Huh. A children's story (a modern fairy tale or something I believe Lucas called it) with a simplistic, childish story. Amazing.
The only reason it was popular, in my estimation, is that we were all young then and didn't see how much it sucked and were wowed by the special effects and nifty characters.
And these nifty characters sprang for what magical ether? Oh, that's right, Lucas' pen. Have you seen the trite crap that passed for kids' movies in the 70's? Star Wars was light years beyond.
At least LOTR had good acting all around, the special effects were not the reason for making the movie have a "wow" factor, and the story was compelling and heavy.
Your point being? There are acting awards, FX awards, story awards, etc. What does any of this have to do with the direction? And what does any of that have to do with Jackson 'finally' getting the nod?
Lucas was simply in the right place at the right time.
With the right product. Same thing could be said for Jackson. He came along at a time when Lucas had already shown that big budget FX movies can make a shitpile of money. At a time when bigger names were tied up with other stuff. At a time when the Tolkien estate was ready to deal.
I recognize he spawned a whole industry, but the quality of the Star Wars movies do not merit a cookie, much less an Academy Award--contrary to all of the LOTR movies.
You haven't answered the questions I wanted answered. First, what particular bit of direction made Jackson's efforts better than, say, Sofia Coppola's? (Just to pick a name of the other contenders). Second, why is this some long delayed acknowledgement of Jackson's skill? What was better from a directing standpoint in Two Towers than in The Pianist? Fellowship... than Beautiful Mind.
I think the scope of each LOTR movie and how well each movie turned out merited best movie.
'Scope' is an awful way to decide what movie is 'best'. Which is harder, crunching numbers to create a billion pixillated orcs, or getting a compelling performance out of Jeff Spicoli? (I know that argument borders on reduxio ad absurdum, but try to see the meaning behind the hyperbole). But what does 'scope' have to do with anything? By that metric, why should the Academy have even considered Mystic River or Lost in Translation?
Hey, there's a reasonable comment about why he won (which I don't disagree with) but nowhere does it address the 'finally' comment. Like has been said for a few years, the reason he didn't win much for the first two was because people wanted to see how the whole thing turned out.
Lucas enters in because at the time of the writing, I noticed plenty of 'Jackson R001Z, Lucas suxx' comments.
The key word is 'little' computer. Very little. Probably only an IC or two. They crammed a controller for various USB antennas into a Slimp3 (among other things) so I can't imagine this would be prohibitive for a Roomba sized device.
Good to see Peter Jackson finally got the Best Director award!
Why? Did you see the other nominated films? By what metric do you determine the 'best director'? If you feel he has been snubbed in the past, that's too bad. The nomination was for this film. (Yes, the voters have frequently righted past wrongs or close calls). A body of work award is typically rewarded specially, and much later in the career.
It's not as if Jackson is particularly old, either. So what is the reasoning behind the 'finally' comment? I just don't see it. There were plenty of good contenders. Nope, it boils down to plain old nerdish fanboyism.
And while I'm burning karma, perhaps the voters were actually thinking of G. Lucas when voting for Jackson. Sure, Jackson pumped out a couple of great movies, did wonders for product management, but Lucas helped define a genre and a generation, both in the insular world of Hollywood and in US culture in general. Yet he's never been 'blessed' by AMPAS, as space opera was too kiddyish. Here's the chance to correct that mistake.
Microsoft doesn't give a shit about burning bridges, because AMD, Intel and NVidia will all break their backs rebuilding them. How much weight does it carry if Ballmer calls up 'one of the gang' and says 'hey, buddy, because of some problems in your drivers we identified, your hardware will never work on Windows again'?
There's only been one console with backwards compatibility. It was a fluke. It may have pushed a few sales, but I doubt it was the defining element of the PS2's dominance. Further, how many purchases of XBox 2's are going to hinge on the massive (sic) library of wonderful XBox games?
I think Marvel would like to forget all about the New Universe. I really must dig up my first issue of 'spitfire and the troubleshooters' sometime.
'Expensive' $50 modems? You never bought a SmartModem, the original AppleModem, or a CourierHST back in 1989.
Balmmer: Oh no. Japanese Government set us up the bomb...
You do the rest...
Screw that newfangled gramophone crap. Real men store music on metal cylinders.
One way to avoid this problem is to remember the only mathematics that applies to cats:
number of litterboxes=number of cats + 1
And place them in different parts of the house.
Cat owners know that what belongs to the cat is the cats and what belongs to everyone else is still the cats.
Reminds me of this joke:
What is a Cat?
1. Cats do what they want.
2. They rarely listen to you.
3. They're totally unpredictable.
4. When you want to play, they want to be alone.
5. When you want to be alone, they want to play.
6. They expect you to cater to their every whim.
7. They're moody.
8. They leave hair everywhere.
CONCLUSION: They're tiny women in little fur coats.
(And so as to provide something for the 0.00002% of slashdot that is female....)
What is a Dog?
1. Dogs spend all day sprawled on the most comfortable piece of furniture in the house.
2. They can hear a package of food opening half a block away, but don't hear you when you're in the same room.
3. They can look dumb and lovable all at the same time.
4. They growl when they are not happy.
5. When you want to play, they want to play.
6. When you want to be alone, they want to play.
7. They leave their toys everywhere.
8. They do disgusting things with their mouths and then try to give you a kiss.
9. They go right for your crotch as soon as they meet you.
CONCLUSION: They're tiny men in little fur coats.