The PowerPad was like Dance Dance Revolution, except in 1987. It shipped with a run-and-jump game called World Class Track Meet.
It occured to people after a while that we didn't need video games that measured how quickly you would move your feet. Of course, the technology at the time couldn't really make a decent "move your feet to music" game.
Is that because I disagree with you? I'm not exactly getting a "friendly Canadian" stereotype from you, since you opened by trying to call me names.
I consider it ridiculous for you to call my use of a cell phone "reckless" or to compare it to crossing the street without looking. There's no reason to believe that use of a cell phone is anywhere near as dangerous as crossing the street WITH looking.
Likewise, there are things that can EASILY be done to MITIGATE any POSSIBLE damage from cell phones.
This is a testable statement, but as far as I know there is no science which suggests it to be true. Standard theories of biological exposure to radiation predict zero risk; if there is risk, then the mechanism for it has yet to be determined. Perhaps the brain is more resistant to these effects than other parts of the body.
I just wish there was some way to make sure the taxpayers didn't ever have to pay for your decision to "accept" the risk you so nonchalantly "assume".
Nonchalant? No, I think I've carefully weighed this issue. As for the taxpayers you mention, I think my medical costs will pale in comparison to the costs inherent in seeing the world through national stereotypes.
Damn straight. I'm afraid I cannot return the compliment, though.
Because living and good health is over-rated? Especially when it comes to proper brain function... apparently.
No, living is under-rated, and good health is over-rated. Living is expressing yourself, making a difference in people's lives, and enjoying things while you have them. Some people find these things easier with a cell phone.
"Good health" these days apparently means compromising your living in a plethora of irrational ways in hopes that you will reduce your chances of contracting rare ailments by a few tenths of a percent. Heck, I eat meat! The risks of eating meat are far greater than the risks (if any) of cell phone use... so why, exactly, would I change my behavior?
Global warming is potentially a major change in the entire biosphere that will affect every living creature on the planet. I think cell phone brain cancer risks are overblown. Even if the studies showing risk are true, I'm personally not going to change my behavior. The cell phone is a useful enough device for me personally to accept the health risks, and I imagine this is true of most heavy users.
The industry already offers hands-free devices so that you don't need to hold the thing to your face if you're worried about it. What else, really, should they do? The device by nature of its function uses electromagnetic radiation.
Just to be the devil's advocate, 250 years ago, you could, if you were skilled or lucky or both, have a life where you could have hundreds of servants working for you, own an estate of thousands of acres without any taxation whatsovever, could charter your own private army and attempt to claim an empire for yourself, legally, and best of all, there was no income tax!
And then you would catch "fever" and be dead in three weeks at the age of 43.
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
I'm using the "lynx-ssl" package from Debian.
Re:Interesting story, but...
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
The Brits see "Google" as generally plural, as do some dialects of American English. Some always consider such a noun singular, and others use a more complex rule.
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
GMail works for me from Lynx, as it does not require Javascript. Of course, my version of Lynx supports HTTPS just fine.
1) A change of CPU does not change what market you are in, any more than a change in graphics card, memory type, or keyboard layout. 2) Apple is the only computer manufacturer with enough control over the OS to distinguish themselves in the market. Apple is currently experiencing tremendous growth in Mac shipments because of this. 4) Stock prices are a fun game, but not a strong indicator of corporate strategy. Apple still makes more revenue from Macs than iPods. 5) All Mac software development firms of any importance are migrating their products to Intel.
Because Microsoft's inclusion of backwards compatibility in Windows has caused all new development to be based on the Windows 3.1 API. Why target Win9x, NT, and XP when you can get them all by focusing on Windows 3.1?
If Apple had a grand plan to migrate to Windows, why maintain OS X for Intel for all those years? Why not make the Windows switch concurrent with the Intel transition and save the effort of porting to x86?
Darn straight! I nearly tripped on a baboon bladder as I walked into the office this morning. We need to find some way to get rid of the stupid things.
As others have suggested, I think this is to some degree a PR issue, but I think it's also part of Nintendo's corporate strategy to be successful without winning. Parts of the public see a giant PS3 vs Xbox360 vs Revolution "war", but I think being #1 or even #2 in the sales charts is about as important to Nintendo as it is to They Might Be Giants. Microsoft and Sony both make bets so big that they have to win, but Nintendo would prefer to not even be at that table.
Well, that article is from 2000, so I don't know how current it is. Also, it says that the IMAX corporation is interested in making digital projectors, but that doesn't mean that they would replace traditional IMAX projectors.
Just do the math -- an IMAX frame has a resolution of something like 10,000x7,000. That's 70 megapixels, which in uncompressed digital 24-bit color is 210MB. At 24 fps, we are talking about 5GB per second, or some 36.2TB for a 120-minute film. Even with lossy compression that is going to be a huge amount of data, impractical for digital projection and distribution for a long time to come.
Maybe digital is the future, but right now, talk of digital is about reducing costs, not improving quality. I'm sure that projection technology companies will continue research, but at the moment it's not the right direction for theaters.
As for smaller auditoriums, the cost of projection equipment eliminates that option. That stuff is nowhere near cheap, and it takes a good sized audience to pay off the costs.
He's thinking more like a home theater setup, or probably something in-between. No huge screen, no film. More like a room with $25,000 of high-end consumer equipment. This is sort of like those places in the mall that have PCs with PC games instead of arcade machines. You just come in with your friends and play around for a while.
I'm a little skeptical -- getting everyone together for a good deathmatch can be a pain, but it seems like everyone these days has a passable home theater.
I think you need to check your math. A paperback is more like 140mmx165mm. If you're not used to metric, an inch is exactly 25.4mm. So the IMAX format is almost two inches high -- huge for motion picture film, certainly.
Also, the width of an IMAX frame is always the same -- 70mm. Your phrase "as wide as they want" suggests that it's variable. Certainly they could have made it wider (to a point, as film can only be moved so fast) but they picked 70mm and they're stuck with that.
Your mention of IMAX brings up what I think is an important point. If theater owners want business from people who have $10,000 home theater setups, they need to do better in the visual quality department. That means forget about digital -- it simply cannot provide a superior experience. IMAX has a frame the size of a business card with ridiculous resolution and great brightness and stability.
Instead, many theaters are dimming bulbs, reducing projection staff, and ignoring problems with misbehaving members of the public. I think this is a short-sighted attempt to reduce costs which will ultimately lead to eliminatin of revenue.
My problem with the numeric pad is that I'm almost never entering numbers. I might enter a new number in when I meet somebody, but it's far more common for me to call someone who's already in my address book. I need an interface more focused on text entry and address book browsing, and that throws the number pad out the window.
Well, it sounds to me like this isn't a capital gain -- this is income. Capital gains is when stocks you hold increase in value. When you receive ownership of a bunch of new stock, that's taxed as income.
That poster looks terrible. This is 2006, it's the 21st century, it's officially The Future(tm). I don't have a domestic slave robot, I don't have a flying car, and I don't live on the moon. I'll be damned if you take away my flip-open communicator.
That, and I'm hoping if Apple does a phone they will figure out something better than the 12 phone buttons in a grid.
The term you're looking for is "Software Engineering", which is a field that studies the problems involved with the development of software. "Computer Science", despite the name, is a branch of mathematics. The creation of a piece of software usually involves very little Computer Science. Computer Science is mostly performed by researchers at universities who create algorithms that developers proceed to copy out of books.
Slashdot Mirror
The PowerPad was like Dance Dance Revolution, except in 1987. It shipped with a run-and-jump game called World Class Track Meet.
It occured to people after a while that we didn't need video games that measured how quickly you would move your feet. Of course, the technology at the time couldn't really make a decent "move your feet to music" game.
No worries. You just keep reinforcing that image.
Is that because I disagree with you? I'm not exactly getting a "friendly Canadian" stereotype from you, since you opened by trying to call me names.
I consider it ridiculous for you to call my use of a cell phone "reckless" or to compare it to crossing the street without looking. There's no reason to believe that use of a cell phone is anywhere near as dangerous as crossing the street WITH looking.
Likewise, there are things that can EASILY be done to MITIGATE any POSSIBLE damage from cell phones.
This is a testable statement, but as far as I know there is no science which suggests it to be true. Standard theories of biological exposure to radiation predict zero risk; if there is risk, then the mechanism for it has yet to be determined. Perhaps the brain is more resistant to these effects than other parts of the body.
I just wish there was some way to make sure the taxpayers didn't ever have to pay for your decision to "accept" the risk you so nonchalantly "assume".
Nonchalant? No, I think I've carefully weighed this issue. As for the taxpayers you mention, I think my medical costs will pale in comparison to the costs inherent in seeing the world through national stereotypes.
You sound like an (U.S.) american.
Damn straight. I'm afraid I cannot return the compliment, though.
Because living and good health is over-rated?
Especially when it comes to proper brain function... apparently.
No, living is under-rated, and good health is over-rated. Living is expressing yourself, making a difference in people's lives, and enjoying things while you have them. Some people find these things easier with a cell phone.
"Good health" these days apparently means compromising your living in a plethora of irrational ways in hopes that you will reduce your chances of contracting rare ailments by a few tenths of a percent. Heck, I eat meat! The risks of eating meat are far greater than the risks (if any) of cell phone use... so why, exactly, would I change my behavior?
Personally, I'm calling for a ban on all radiation. I prefer the dark.
Global warming is potentially a major change in the entire biosphere that will affect every living creature on the planet. I think cell phone brain cancer risks are overblown. Even if the studies showing risk are true, I'm personally not going to change my behavior. The cell phone is a useful enough device for me personally to accept the health risks, and I imagine this is true of most heavy users.
The industry already offers hands-free devices so that you don't need to hold the thing to your face if you're worried about it. What else, really, should they do? The device by nature of its function uses electromagnetic radiation.
Just to be the devil's advocate, 250 years ago, you could, if you were skilled or lucky or both, have a life where you could have hundreds of servants working for you, own an estate of thousands of acres without any taxation whatsovever, could charter your own private army and attempt to claim an empire for yourself, legally, and best of all, there was no income tax!
And then you would catch "fever" and be dead in three weeks at the age of 43.
I'm using the "lynx-ssl" package from Debian.
The Brits see "Google" as generally plural, as do some dialects of American English. Some always consider such a noun singular, and others use a more complex rule.
GMail works for me from Lynx, as it does not require Javascript. Of course, my version of Lynx supports HTTPS just fine.
Ask Slashdot is a powerful resource to collect knowledge, perhaps more than any other system in the galaxy.
I really think the Vulcans have us beat, whatwith their mindmelds and all.
1) A change of CPU does not change what market you are in, any more than a change in graphics card, memory type, or keyboard layout.
2) Apple is the only computer manufacturer with enough control over the OS to distinguish themselves in the market. Apple is currently experiencing tremendous growth in Mac shipments because of this.
4) Stock prices are a fun game, but not a strong indicator of corporate strategy. Apple still makes more revenue from Macs than iPods.
5) All Mac software development firms of any importance are migrating their products to Intel.
Because Microsoft's inclusion of backwards compatibility in Windows has caused all new development to be based on the Windows 3.1 API. Why target Win9x, NT, and XP when you can get them all by focusing on Windows 3.1?
If Apple had a grand plan to migrate to Windows, why maintain OS X for Intel for all those years? Why not make the Windows switch concurrent with the Intel transition and save the effort of porting to x86?
Darn straight! I nearly tripped on a baboon bladder as I walked into the office this morning. We need to find some way to get rid of the stupid things.
As others have suggested, I think this is to some degree a PR issue, but I think it's also part of Nintendo's corporate strategy to be successful without winning. Parts of the public see a giant PS3 vs Xbox360 vs Revolution "war", but I think being #1 or even #2 in the sales charts is about as important to Nintendo as it is to They Might Be Giants. Microsoft and Sony both make bets so big that they have to win, but Nintendo would prefer to not even be at that table.
Well, that article is from 2000, so I don't know how current it is. Also, it says that the IMAX corporation is interested in making digital projectors, but that doesn't mean that they would replace traditional IMAX projectors.
Just do the math -- an IMAX frame has a resolution of something like 10,000x7,000. That's 70 megapixels, which in uncompressed digital 24-bit color is 210MB. At 24 fps, we are talking about 5GB per second, or some 36.2TB for a 120-minute film. Even with lossy compression that is going to be a huge amount of data, impractical for digital projection and distribution for a long time to come.
Maybe digital is the future, but right now, talk of digital is about reducing costs, not improving quality. I'm sure that projection technology companies will continue research, but at the moment it's not the right direction for theaters.
As for smaller auditoriums, the cost of projection equipment eliminates that option. That stuff is nowhere near cheap, and it takes a good sized audience to pay off the costs.
He's thinking more like a home theater setup, or probably something in-between. No huge screen, no film. More like a room with $25,000 of high-end consumer equipment. This is sort of like those places in the mall that have PCs with PC games instead of arcade machines. You just come in with your friends and play around for a while.
I'm a little skeptical -- getting everyone together for a good deathmatch can be a pain, but it seems like everyone these days has a passable home theater.
I think you need to check your math. A paperback is more like 140mmx165mm. If you're not used to metric, an inch is exactly 25.4mm. So the IMAX format is almost two inches high -- huge for motion picture film, certainly.
Also, the width of an IMAX frame is always the same -- 70mm. Your phrase "as wide as they want" suggests that it's variable. Certainly they could have made it wider (to a point, as film can only be moved so fast) but they picked 70mm and they're stuck with that.
Your mention of IMAX brings up what I think is an important point. If theater owners want business from people who have $10,000 home theater setups, they need to do better in the visual quality department. That means forget about digital -- it simply cannot provide a superior experience. IMAX has a frame the size of a business card with ridiculous resolution and great brightness and stability.
Instead, many theaters are dimming bulbs, reducing projection staff, and ignoring problems with misbehaving members of the public. I think this is a short-sighted attempt to reduce costs which will ultimately lead to eliminatin of revenue.
My problem with the numeric pad is that I'm almost never entering numbers. I might enter a new number in when I meet somebody, but it's far more common for me to call someone who's already in my address book. I need an interface more focused on text entry and address book browsing, and that throws the number pad out the window.
Well, it sounds to me like this isn't a capital gain -- this is income. Capital gains is when stocks you hold increase in value. When you receive ownership of a bunch of new stock, that's taxed as income.
That poster looks terrible. This is 2006, it's the 21st century, it's officially The Future(tm). I don't have a domestic slave robot, I don't have a flying car, and I don't live on the moon. I'll be damned if you take away my flip-open communicator.
That, and I'm hoping if Apple does a phone they will figure out something better than the 12 phone buttons in a grid.
No, it isn't, actually.
The term you're looking for is "Software Engineering", which is a field that studies the problems involved with the development of software. "Computer Science", despite the name, is a branch of mathematics. The creation of a piece of software usually involves very little Computer Science. Computer Science is mostly performed by researchers at universities who create algorithms that developers proceed to copy out of books.
As an entity inside said Universe (presumably), how could you possibly even begin to know that?