I don't know what anti-spam software everybody uses, but I know that many packages allow you to configure how messages identified as spam are handled, such as deleting them, saving them to a mailbox (or email address), or sending to the recipient.
I think it would be awful, just awful if lots of people configured their anti-spam software to send all of their spam-identified mail to this poor woman's email address.
Re:how about for non-comic viewers?
on
Review: Spiderman
·
· Score: 1
Ok, here's how the movie is not like the Amazing Spider-man:
Intellegence. In comic, Peter Parker is a science "genius". He's really, really, smart. He invents his webbing formula, the webshooters to use them, sensors that allows him to track people with his spider sense, and so forth.
The extent we saw in the movie was he wins the science award for graduation.
Physique. Throughout the entire Ditko run, he was portrayed as a skinny kid and a skinny superhero. This served many times to disarm opponents who would laugh at him...until he wiped the floor with 'em!
In the movie he becomes a buff young stud overnight.
Family Ties. Aunt May and Uncle Ben were the only people in the world that loved him. They meant everything to him.
In the movie Peter tells Uncle Ben to effectively get off his case because he (Ben) is not his dad.
Constant Oppression. Peter Parker is the quinessential "sad sack". No matter how bad your day was, his was worse! He was constantly picked on at school, his uncle was killed, his aunt was frail and perpetually on death's door, they were constantly on the edge of being evicted, occasionally his film would be ruined and there's be no picture money from the Daily Bugle, the world hates him thanks to JJJ. He's constantly stressed out and you always feel sorry for him.
In the movie his uncle dies. Other than that, Aunt May is spry and survives a bomb blast. Peter moves out to live in an apartment that he apparently is able to pay for (or Harry's dad pays for). He's not all that upset about not having a job. His only stress was due to the Green Goblin learning his secret identity and using his loved ones.
Secret Identity. Peter is very careful to keep is alter-ego secret because he's afraid that knowlege would allow others to hurt those he loves.
In the movie, he walks into the wrestling promoter's office unmasked. He fights Mary Jane's muggers without his mask. He has no obvious stress about others finding out about him.
Spider-man Persona. Peter's Spider-man identity is that of someone who constantly berates his opponents with wisecracks and humor.
In the movie there is no difference between Peter and Spider-man's personas.
Public Perception. Thanks to J. Jonah Jameson's rants and headlines in the Daily Bugle, most of the public is either afraid of Spider-man or hate him.
In the movie New Yorkers rally behind him on the bridge as "one of our own".
Girls!. Peter Parker is a teenager and likes girls! In the course of his first 100 issues, he dates Betty Brant (JJJ's secretary, an older woman!), Gwen Stacy, and Mary Jane.
In the movie, after finally "getting the girl", he pushes her away apparently because he won't risk her getting hurt because he's Spider-man.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility Lesson Peter lets the criminal that kills Uncle Ben go because after his stint of celebrity, he feels really cocky about his newfound power and fame.
In the movie he lets the criminal go because the criminal robs the wrestling promoter who has screwed Peter over.
I'm sorry, but the character of Peter Parker/Spider-man in this movie is very different than the Stan Lee/Ditko version.
A few of these I might have been able to forgive, but not so many. It's simply not the same character.
No, Steve Ditko. Kirby had nothing to do with Spider-man so he shouldn't be credited. He tried to submit a character based on the Silver Spider character he and Simon created in the early 50s, but the Marvel Spider-man was the creation of mostly Ditko and Lee.
He and Stan were credited about 3 credits before the director. It was something like "Based on the Marvel comic book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko".
Chris
Re:how about for non-comic viewers?
on
Review: Spiderman
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Other way around.
If you're NOT familiar with the character by reading the comic books, you'll probably like the movie.
I'm not sure how anyone who has read the comic books can call this movie a good Spider-man movie. Maybe "Pete Parker, Spiderman", but it's definetely not the same character Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created back in the day.
My girlfriend and I felt the same way. I didn't actively hate it but it failed to interest me enough to go read the books.
On the other hand I didn't read Harry Potter and I I loved that movie. It did spark my interest to read the books.
And on a slight tangent, after seeing Harry Potter and reading the book, I was impressed by how much the movie followed the book. With very few exceptions, they took the entire story and put it on the big screen. The parts they ommitted or merged into others were the right moves to push the story along in a big screen format (IMHO, of course).
The other day someone who loved LOTR said that they felt it was a much more faithful adaption of that book than Harry Potter was of the Sorcerer's Stone. I was a bit incredulous given the complaints I've read about the expension of Liv Tyler's character. Also, another friend told me that the character of Galdalf in the movie is much different than the character in the book (in the movie he was a kindly, friendly sort of fellow; according to my friend, he's a manipulative SOB in the book).
To which I have to ask; if the movie is "off" in these two instances, what is the real attraction to the movie?
I feel precisely as you do. I'm a big fan of Star Wars, but I've never lost sight as to its target audience, namely kids like myself between the ages of 7 and 12. Yes it can be very entertaining for people of all ages, but only if they're about to enjoy juvenile fiction. When I watch Star Wars, I'm 10 years old again, not 28.
I saw The Phantom Menace the first night. The audience was mostly 20-somethings like myself. There was lots of excitement before the movie and after, almost dead silence and shocked expressions on people's faces. Immediately the vocal criticisms started up and clearly the majority was disapointed...except me. I think I was the only one who walked out with a huge grin on their face. I wanted to see it again!
4 more viewings in the theater, once on VHS, and other on DVD and I can't wait for Episode II!
ccording to my wife (who, unlike the characters in the movie, actually read How to Stay Alive in the Woods, following a stream doesn't always get you to civilization; sometimes the stream empties into a pond that is even harder to navigate around.
While this can be true, the chances of reaching some form of civilization (a trail, a road, a town) still outweigh ignoring it outright. Especially if you're part of a group of morons who throw away the map.
Unlike the first poster, as a former Scout, I didn't find it too unbelievable that someone would know to lay down a tarp but not be able to follow a map. In my Scouting experience, about 1/2 turn out to be excellent woodsmen and the rest turn out to be somewhere between "barely competent" and "fucking incapable". I thought the movie was justice against the fuckwits who would rather start fires and carve their initials in trees than learn how to select proper camping sites and use maps.
I think you're missing the difference in depth of the situation.
Navigator/Communicator is an Internet application that runs on top of Windows. I believe it only has 1/2 the browser market share.
Windows is everywhere. It is a monopoly on the corporate and consumer desktop.
As a developer, you would simply have more to gain by contributing toward the OS that nearly everyone uses as opposed to a web browser that only 1/2 of those who work on the Internet use.
I'm on the side of the skeptics who question just how far Microsoft would Open Source Windows, but to theorize that Netscape's poor showing (although is 30 developers really "poor"?) is a basis for determining the number developers who would work on Windows doesn't follow. The two products are magnitudes of differences apart.
Hey, you make the world you live in. My comment was in regards to your opinion which was based on speculation and no authoritative experience. I have read Code Complete. You have not. Why not pull back your foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment?
What makes the book so great? It's a good collection of techniques that are platform and language independent. It empowers any programmer not so much in terms of completely original material, but as a handy collection of useful tips, tricks, technqiues, methodologies, and so on.
Windows assumes that you want to use the entire drive as a Windows 95 partition. ... If RedHat (blindly) assumed that you wanted to use the entire hard drive as a Linux root partition, installation would be just as easy as the Win95 one. Instead, RedHat assumes (correctly) that you may want to have other OSes installed.
You may want multiple OSes installed on your computer, but you're in a decided minority. The majority of people who buy computers have no interest in maintaining multiple OSes. Therefore it is correct from the standpoint of "what most people want/will want" that Microsoft assumes your entire drive will be used for Windows. Just as it should be a correct assumption for Linux distrubutions like Red Hat.
I'm not saying there's no room for an advanced setup wizard to allow those of us who are technically included to fiddle with every detail, but if the goal is to get as many people up and running on Linux as possible, there must be a "most" common setup that is no more difficult than popping in the CD-ROM, booting, and perhaps asking the few questions that the Windows 98 setup requires.
Those are characteristics of server-side attributes, not the client-side which is what the whole Mozilla project is geared toward.
I think it's illustrative of the battle that projects based in Open Source need to fight in order to play ball in the client market. Here we have a perfect example of an end-user project that has accomplished nearly nothing since it's inception.
Server platforms and apps are run by technically competent people who can comprehend and perhaps even enjoy command-lines and no GUI (I'll certainly raise my hand). And hell, if leaving out the fluff results in a more robust product, that's what you want in a server anyay. However, you're not going to find that kind of attraction from the unwashed masses who want to read e-mail and browse the web and perhaps write the occasional letter. It's a ball-busting exercise to write those kind of applications and if it ain't "right" few will use it. And if nobody is going to use it, what's the point?
I don't think the problem is unsolvable but it will be difficult. I feel it's a point that most Open Source advocates seem to miss or choose to ignore when it comes to considering the client market.
I think it's typical of the mentality of a founder-esque employee who in unable to grow with the company. Throughout our industry, you'll find many, many examples of people who were "there in the beginning" who are unable to make the shift as a company becomes successful.
I don't know if it's neccessarily "bad" though. Some people simply work better in that startup environment and perhaps that's where they're best at. From what I've read about the first year of Netscape, it was a really tight-knit family with incredible accomplishments. That's a tough act to follow or even the recapture and I think for some people, whether they would admit it or not, that period is the "win". After that, it's a case of "Where do you go when you're at the top?"
For many people, it's difficult, if not impossible to realize they need to accept the reset button and discover their next big goal.
and you're missing his point.
on
Linux on CNN
·
· Score: 1
Exactly right, "they" want a computer that works like a freakin' toaster, only a computer isn't a freakin' toaster. Microsoft have been selling this brain-dead myth for years and they have yet to deliver it. They never will deliver it--their time has expired--we're moving on.
Then Linux is as good as dead already.
People must have a sufficient reason for learning how to use a new tool. Those of us who particpate in these forums take for granted this drive inside of us. We'll spend all day, all week, or all month to get something to work. For the average Joe, if he can't figure it out within a few minutes, it ain't worth it. Average Joe doesn't know how to set the time on his VCR but knows how to insert a tape and press play.
That's where the ultimate utility of a computer has always been dreamed about and will continue to be steered toward. Why is the web browser the most revolutionary piece of software in the past 10 years? Because you don't need an e-mail client, FTP client, or gopher, or WAIS, or any of the other rubbish. You point and click in what has become a fairly consistant interface across different implementations. That's a huge step forward from the hodge-podge of solutions that were around before.
Microsoft can be villified for a great many things, but for promoting the "myth" that a computer can be as easy to use as a toaster? They're doing nothing more elaborate than parroting back what people say they want. And despite the caws and screeches from the peanut gallery, they do a decent job of inching ever so slowly toward that goal.
"Open Source" and "free" are quaint and cosy buzz-words for the new hacker community, but they don't go far in a world that wants the results from a product that allows them to do what they want to do in the easiest and most painless way possible. At this moment, only Microsoft (and possibly Apple) come close to catering to the consumer market on THEIR terms.
If the Linux community ever decides to do that, then there'll be real reason for Microsoft to be scared. In a big way.
MP3 has just as much of a chance of survival or death as any other popular streaming format. It's Open Source origin allows it to be incorporated into any application, even the Windowze Media Player and Real technologies.
I'm usually one who doesn't take sides in format battles, but in this one only one outcome is true: MP3 has already won.
One of those reasons, as you mentioned, is it's open source origins allowing it to be used anywhere. Another is that there are applications out there from computer applications like WinAmp or Media Player to integrated systems like the Rio. The applications are well done and easy to use. Every piece on MP3 I've seen in the news shows a college kid with a Mac or Windows; obtaining and listening to MP3s is very nearly for dummies.
The methods are also remarkably stable. While not quite point-click-and-drool, it's not too difficult to rip a CD or burn your own.
I think the biggest problem the recording industry doesn't understand is the relationship between MP3 and CDs. Personally, I rarely use MP3s. I download 'em and burn them to CDs that I can use in my stereo or car portable. That's the reason why I keep a library of MP3s around. It's certainly not because of the inconvience of lugging my laptop around or paying 3-4x money for a Rio player over a portable CD player.
Sure the recording industry can come out with a cool new standard that they can charge for, but who would buy it when it's so easy to rip/burn your own using that old, poopy MP3 standard? Especially since "poverty" is a reason that many give to download MP3 over buying albums in the first place?
Speaking for myself, given the choice of spending the 2-4 hours it takes to download MP3s, encode them to.WAVs, defrag my drives, and finally to burn to CD, it's simply much more convienent for me to go buy the damn thing. And I feel that it's the right thing to do. The MP3s I've downloaded and burned have all been rare songs, demos, etc. on hard to find or out out of print albums and b-sides. And concerts. Stuff that is either next-to-impossible to find or money that isn't going to the label or artists anyway. THAT'S where the record companies could make money from me by doing nothing more than ripping into MP3 an artists collection of rarities that don't make sense to release otherwise and charging a buck a song.
Agreed. The movies were just as funny as they ever were.
The only real problem with the Sci-fi channel was the focus on sci-fi movies. I would think that the concept of being on a space station would be enough, but I really wanted to see more non-sci-fi movies along the lines of Mitchell ("Mitchell!"), Sidehackers, and other great forgettable 60s cheese movies.
Makes me wonder... (hardware bigotry follows...)
on
NYT covers WINE
·
· Score: 1
Meanwhile I've had a WD drive running for 3.5 years without a single bad sector.
I have a different experience with WD drives. Since the beginning of 1998, I've gone through probably 5 WD drives for my 3 development machines. It might have been a bad batch (we bought a case), but between 3 and 4 months of use, they'd start collecting bad sectors and become garbage fodder. Fujitsu has been pretty crappy too.
My Maxtor drive has been good so far (about 5 months now) and I've had good luck with Quantum.
Hey, I'm a huge Star Wars geek. I'm sure there's lots of crossover between Star Wars and computer users. I can see where certain "events" like the release of the Episode 1 trailer are if not strictly appropriate, at least "close enough" to report.
But don't you think the Episode 1 marketing machine goes a bit beyond the computer-geeky this site represents?
While there wasn't many movies that sounded enticing enough to drag my ass to a theater, my vote goes to The Mask of Zorro. A simple, fun, action film - truly a lost art to Hollywood these days.
As for best television show, it's gotta be South Park. Honorable mention goes to VH1's Behind the Music series for being able to hook me into watching biographies of musical entertainers I otherwise didn't care about (not to say that I do now, but I couldn't resist watching the show whenever it was on).
And for best album of the year? Metallica's Garage, Inc.. It's been damn near impossible to get either CD out of my player.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what anti-spam software everybody uses, but I know that many packages allow you to configure how messages identified as spam are handled, such as deleting them, saving them to a mailbox (or email address), or sending to the recipient.
I think it would be awful, just awful if lots of people configured their anti-spam software to send all of their spam-identified mail to this poor woman's email address.
Ok, here's how the movie is not like the Amazing Spider-man:
Intellegence. In comic, Peter Parker is a science "genius". He's really, really, smart. He invents his webbing formula, the webshooters to use them, sensors that allows him to track people with his spider sense, and so forth.
The extent we saw in the movie was he wins the science award for graduation.
Physique. Throughout the entire Ditko run, he was portrayed as a skinny kid and a skinny superhero. This served many times to disarm opponents who would laugh at him...until he wiped the floor with 'em!
In the movie he becomes a buff young stud overnight.
Family Ties. Aunt May and Uncle Ben were the only people in the world that loved him. They meant everything to him.
In the movie Peter tells Uncle Ben to effectively get off his case because he (Ben) is not his dad.
Constant Oppression. Peter Parker is the quinessential "sad sack". No matter how bad your day was, his was worse! He was constantly picked on at school, his uncle was killed, his aunt was frail and perpetually on death's door, they were constantly on the edge of being evicted, occasionally his film would be ruined and there's be no picture money from the Daily Bugle, the world hates him thanks to JJJ. He's constantly stressed out and you always feel sorry for him.
In the movie his uncle dies. Other than that, Aunt May is spry and survives a bomb blast. Peter moves out to live in an apartment that he apparently is able to pay for (or Harry's dad pays for). He's not all that upset about not having a job. His only stress was due to the Green Goblin learning his secret identity and using his loved ones.
Secret Identity. Peter is very careful to keep is alter-ego secret because he's afraid that knowlege would allow others to hurt those he loves.
In the movie, he walks into the wrestling promoter's office unmasked. He fights Mary Jane's muggers without his mask. He has no obvious stress about others finding out about him.
Spider-man Persona. Peter's Spider-man identity is that of someone who constantly berates his opponents with wisecracks and humor.
In the movie there is no difference between Peter and Spider-man's personas.
Public Perception. Thanks to J. Jonah Jameson's rants and headlines in the Daily Bugle, most of the public is either afraid of Spider-man or hate him.
In the movie New Yorkers rally behind him on the bridge as "one of our own".
Girls!. Peter Parker is a teenager and likes girls! In the course of his first 100 issues, he dates Betty Brant (JJJ's secretary, an older woman!), Gwen Stacy, and Mary Jane.
In the movie, after finally "getting the girl", he pushes her away apparently because he won't risk her getting hurt because he's Spider-man.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility Lesson Peter lets the criminal that kills Uncle Ben go because after his stint of celebrity, he feels really cocky about his newfound power and fame.
In the movie he lets the criminal go because the criminal robs the wrestling promoter who has screwed Peter over.
I'm sorry, but the character of Peter Parker/Spider-man in this movie is very different than the Stan Lee/Ditko version.
A few of these I might have been able to forgive, but not so many. It's simply not the same character.
No, Steve Ditko. Kirby had nothing to do with Spider-man so he shouldn't be credited. He tried to submit a character based on the Silver Spider character he and Simon created in the early 50s, but the Marvel Spider-man was the creation of mostly Ditko and Lee.
Chris
He and Stan were credited about 3 credits before the director. It was something like "Based on the Marvel comic book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko".
Chris
Other way around.
If you're NOT familiar with the character by reading the comic books, you'll probably like the movie.
I'm not sure how anyone who has read the comic books can call this movie a good Spider-man movie. Maybe "Pete Parker, Spiderman", but it's definetely not the same character Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created back in the day.
Not sure why you'd expect credit to Jack since it was Steve Ditko who co-created Spider-man.
And he is properly credited.
My girlfriend and I felt the same way. I didn't actively hate it but it failed to interest me enough to go read the books.
On the other hand I didn't read Harry Potter and I I loved that movie. It did spark my interest to read the books.
And on a slight tangent, after seeing Harry Potter and reading the book, I was impressed by how much the movie followed the book. With very few exceptions, they took the entire story and put it on the big screen. The parts they ommitted or merged into others were the right moves to push the story along in a big screen format (IMHO, of course).
The other day someone who loved LOTR said that they felt it was a much more faithful adaption of that book than Harry Potter was of the Sorcerer's Stone. I was a bit incredulous given the complaints I've read about the expension of Liv Tyler's character. Also, another friend told me that the character of Galdalf in the movie is much different than the character in the book (in the movie he was a kindly, friendly sort of fellow; according to my friend, he's a manipulative SOB in the book).
To which I have to ask; if the movie is "off" in these two instances, what is the real attraction to the movie?
Thank you!
I feel precisely as you do. I'm a big fan of Star Wars, but I've never lost sight as to its target audience, namely kids like myself between the ages of 7 and 12. Yes it can be very entertaining for people of all ages, but only if they're about to enjoy juvenile fiction. When I watch Star Wars, I'm 10 years old again, not 28.
I saw The Phantom Menace the first night. The audience was mostly 20-somethings like myself. There was lots of excitement before the movie and after, almost dead silence and shocked expressions on people's faces. Immediately the vocal criticisms started up and clearly the majority was disapointed...except me. I think I was the only one who walked out with a huge grin on their face. I wanted to see it again!
4 more viewings in the theater, once on VHS, and other on DVD and I can't wait for Episode II!
ccording to my wife (who, unlike the characters in the movie, actually read How to Stay Alive in the Woods, following a stream doesn't always get you to civilization; sometimes the stream empties into a pond that is even harder to navigate around.
While this can be true, the chances of reaching some form of civilization (a trail, a road, a town) still outweigh ignoring it outright. Especially if you're part of a group of morons who throw away the map.
Unlike the first poster, as a former Scout, I didn't find it too unbelievable that someone would know to lay down a tarp but not be able to follow a map. In my Scouting experience, about 1/2 turn out to be excellent woodsmen and the rest turn out to be somewhere between "barely competent" and "fucking incapable". I thought the movie was justice against the fuckwits who would rather start fires and carve their initials in trees than learn how to select proper camping sites and use maps.
Why? The point was performance, not pricing, and not even reliability (another Linux selling point).
I think you're missing the difference in depth of the situation.
Navigator/Communicator is an Internet application that runs on top of Windows. I believe it only has 1/2 the browser market share.
Windows is everywhere. It is a monopoly on the corporate and consumer desktop.
As a developer, you would simply have more to gain by contributing toward the OS that nearly everyone uses as opposed to a web browser that only 1/2 of those who work on the Internet use.
I'm on the side of the skeptics who question just how far Microsoft would Open Source Windows, but to theorize that Netscape's poor showing (although is 30 developers really "poor"?) is a basis for determining the number developers who would work on Windows doesn't follow. The two products are magnitudes of differences apart.
Hey, you make the world you live in. My comment was in regards to your opinion which was based on speculation and no authoritative experience. I have read Code Complete. You have not. Why not pull back your foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment?
What makes the book so great? It's a good collection of techniques that are platform and language independent. It empowers any programmer not so much in terms of completely original material, but as a handy collection of useful tips, tricks, technqiues, methodologies, and so on.
A pity that your mindset is so limited. Code Complete is an excellent book. The fact that it is published by Microsoft is irrelevant.
Windows assumes that you want to use the entire drive as a Windows 95 partition.
...
If RedHat (blindly) assumed that you wanted to use the entire hard drive as a Linux root partition, installation would be just as easy as the Win95 one. Instead, RedHat assumes (correctly) that you may want to have other OSes installed.
You may want multiple OSes installed on your computer, but you're in a decided minority. The majority of people who buy computers have no interest in maintaining multiple OSes. Therefore it is correct from the standpoint of "what most people want/will want" that Microsoft assumes your entire drive will be used for Windows. Just as it should be a correct assumption for Linux distrubutions like Red Hat.
I'm not saying there's no room for an advanced setup wizard to allow those of us who are technically included to fiddle with every detail, but if the goal is to get as many people up and running on Linux as possible, there must be a "most" common setup that is no more difficult than popping in the CD-ROM, booting, and perhaps asking the few questions that the Windows 98 setup requires.
Those are characteristics of server-side attributes, not the client-side which is what the whole Mozilla project is geared toward.
I think it's illustrative of the battle that projects based in Open Source need to fight in order to play ball in the client market. Here we have a perfect example of an end-user project that has accomplished nearly nothing since it's inception.
Server platforms and apps are run by technically competent people who can comprehend and perhaps even enjoy command-lines and no GUI (I'll certainly raise my hand). And hell, if leaving out the fluff results in a more robust product, that's what you want in a server anyay. However, you're not going to find that kind of attraction from the unwashed masses who want to read e-mail and browse the web and perhaps write the occasional letter. It's a ball-busting exercise to write those kind of applications and if it ain't "right" few will use it. And if nobody is going to use it, what's the point?
I don't think the problem is unsolvable but it will be difficult. I feel it's a point that most Open Source advocates seem to miss or choose to ignore when it comes to considering the client market.
I think it's typical of the mentality of a founder-esque employee who in unable to grow with the company. Throughout our industry, you'll find many, many examples of people who were "there in the beginning" who are unable to make the shift as a company becomes successful.
I don't know if it's neccessarily "bad" though. Some people simply work better in that startup environment and perhaps that's where they're best at. From what I've read about the first year of Netscape, it was a really tight-knit family with incredible accomplishments. That's a tough act to follow or even the recapture and I think for some people, whether they would admit it or not, that period is the "win". After that, it's a case of "Where do you go when you're at the top?"
For many people, it's difficult, if not impossible to realize they need to accept the reset button and discover their next big goal.
Exactly right, "they" want a computer that works like a freakin' toaster, only a computer isn't a freakin' toaster. Microsoft have been selling this brain-dead myth for years and they have yet to deliver it. They never will deliver it--their time has expired--we're moving on.
Then Linux is as good as dead already.
People must have a sufficient reason for learning how to use a new tool. Those of us who particpate in these forums take for granted this drive inside of us. We'll spend all day, all week, or all month to get something to work. For the average Joe, if he can't figure it out within a few minutes, it ain't worth it. Average Joe doesn't know how to set the time on his VCR but knows how to insert a tape and press play.
That's where the ultimate utility of a computer has always been dreamed about and will continue to be steered toward. Why is the web browser the most revolutionary piece of software in the past 10 years? Because you don't need an e-mail client, FTP client, or gopher, or WAIS, or any of the other rubbish. You point and click in what has become a fairly consistant interface across different implementations. That's a huge step forward from the hodge-podge of solutions that were around before.
Microsoft can be villified for a great many things, but for promoting the "myth" that a computer can be as easy to use as a toaster? They're doing nothing more elaborate than parroting back what people say they want. And despite the caws and screeches from the peanut gallery, they do a decent job of inching ever so slowly toward that goal.
"Open Source" and "free" are quaint and cosy buzz-words for the new hacker community, but they don't go far in a world that wants the results from a product that allows them to do what they want to do in the easiest and most painless way possible. At this moment, only Microsoft (and possibly Apple) come close to catering to the consumer market on THEIR terms.
If the Linux community ever decides to do that, then there'll be real reason for Microsoft to be scared. In a big way.
MP3 has just as much of a chance of survival or death as any other popular streaming format. It's Open Source origin allows it to be incorporated into any application, even the Windowze Media Player and Real technologies.
.WAVs, defrag my drives, and finally to burn to CD, it's simply much more convienent for me to go buy the damn thing. And I feel that it's the right thing to do. The MP3s I've downloaded and burned have all been rare songs, demos, etc. on hard to find or out out of print albums and b-sides. And concerts. Stuff that is either next-to-impossible to find or money that isn't going to the label or artists anyway. THAT'S where the record companies could make money from me by doing nothing more than ripping into MP3 an artists collection of rarities that don't make sense to release otherwise and charging a buck a song.
I'm usually one who doesn't take sides in format battles, but in this one only one outcome is true: MP3 has already won.
One of those reasons, as you mentioned, is it's open source origins allowing it to be used anywhere. Another is that there are applications out there from computer applications like WinAmp or Media Player to integrated systems like the Rio. The applications are well done and easy to use. Every piece on MP3 I've seen in the news shows a college kid with a Mac or Windows; obtaining and listening to MP3s is very nearly for dummies.
The methods are also remarkably stable. While not quite point-click-and-drool, it's not too difficult to rip a CD or burn your own.
I think the biggest problem the recording industry doesn't understand is the relationship between MP3 and CDs. Personally, I rarely use MP3s. I download 'em and burn them to CDs that I can use in my stereo or car portable. That's the reason why I keep a library of MP3s around. It's certainly not because of the inconvience of lugging my laptop around or paying 3-4x money for a Rio player over a portable CD player.
Sure the recording industry can come out with a cool new standard that they can charge for, but who would buy it when it's so easy to rip/burn your own using that old, poopy MP3 standard? Especially since "poverty" is a reason that many give to download MP3 over buying albums in the first place?
Speaking for myself, given the choice of spending the 2-4 hours it takes to download MP3s, encode them to
Agreed. The movies were just as funny as they ever were.
The only real problem with the Sci-fi channel was the focus on sci-fi movies. I would think that the concept of being on a space station would be enough, but I really wanted to see more non-sci-fi movies along the lines of Mitchell ("Mitchell!"), Sidehackers, and other great forgettable 60s cheese movies.
Meanwhile I've had a WD drive running for 3.5 years without a single bad sector.
I have a different experience with WD drives. Since the beginning of 1998, I've gone through probably 5 WD drives for my 3 development machines. It might have been a bad batch (we bought a case), but between 3 and 4 months of use, they'd start collecting bad sectors and become garbage fodder. Fujitsu has been pretty crappy too.
My Maxtor drive has been good so far (about 5 months now) and I've had good luck with Quantum.
Is this Slashdot or TheForce.Net?
Hey, I'm a huge Star Wars geek. I'm sure there's lots of crossover between Star Wars and computer users. I can see where certain "events" like the release of the Episode 1 trailer are if not strictly appropriate, at least "close enough" to report.
But don't you think the Episode 1 marketing machine goes a bit beyond the computer-geeky this site represents?
The Courier were and remain very pricy, but they tend to be well worth it if you need a reliable modem for 7x24 service.
Does Mr. Rollins do VO's for all the shows?
No, it's different for different groups. For example, Steven Tyler did the narration for Led Zeppelin. Was that William Burroughs who did The Who?
While there wasn't many movies that sounded enticing enough to drag my ass to a theater, my vote goes to The Mask of Zorro. A simple, fun, action film - truly a lost art to Hollywood these days.
As for best television show, it's gotta be South Park. Honorable mention goes to VH1's Behind the Music series for being able to hook me into watching biographies of musical entertainers I otherwise didn't care about (not to say that I do now, but I couldn't resist watching the show whenever it was on).
And for best album of the year? Metallica's Garage, Inc.. It's been damn near impossible to get either CD out of my player.