Re:Steve Jobs iPod Collection
on
Real Wood iPod
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"This one would seemingly fit in but looks to be executed to lower quality than those in the display."
Low quality? This mod is phenominal. If you had a team of designers and millions of dollars, you could have what Steve Jobs supposedly has. The rest of us will admire what one guy has done.
You mean the Muppets are different because the writers, puppetteers, etc. are different than they were over 20 years ago? Gasp!
Newsflash: your childhood was not all it's cracked up to be. Atari wasn't that good, the B-52s were NEVER cool, some of the writing on the Muppet Show downright stunk. Funny? Nearly always. But rarely "witty or zinging".
I laughed. That's all that really matters. If you don't like it *gasp again!*, click your close button.
That's a bit of a misnomer. The people getting banned weren't "exploring", they were exploiting.
Some of them enter a "protected area", get killed by the Guardians of Blizzard a few times (super mobs) and walk away with an imaginary badge (and screenshots) saying "they did it." That's fine.
Some would find ways to enter the areas as ghosts, or kill mobs they weren't supposed to (killing the king from Old Ironforge because he can't get there). That's not ok, and they got banned because of it.
It's been suggested numerous times to allow auctions to be viewable on the web for Wow, but they don't seem to go for it. That would enable a good deal of immersion for me (I'm always wondering how my auctions are doing).
Well, actually, from the article it sort of sounds like a multibranch computing article I read a while back. I'm not sure if Intel actually went through with this, but the idea was to have a CPU process multiple "paths" ahead of time.
So, for example, for a simple if statement waiting on user input, part of the CPU would process the "true" result of the statement and part would process the "false" one. When the user made a decision, one would be used and one would be thrown out. In theory, computing these branches ahead of time was supposed to be faster than doing things linearly.
Again, though, I'm not sure Intel went through with this. They were the subject of the article.
Stupid me... I thought "supports Athlon 64" on the new board meant, you know, actually supporting Athlon 64. I don't keep up with AMD to know that they switched pin numbers on the same chip.
Perhaps someone can explain to me (either from an engineering or economic background) why this new stuff costs so much?
Just this weekend I saw the new nVidia 7800 and said to myself "It's expensive, but I'd like to get one". Bought the card ($600). Since my current AMD ASUS board didn't support PCI Express, I picked up a new one ($150). The board said it supported Athlon 64 chips, but when I got it it was 939-pins. The chip I was using was 754-pins. Went back to Newegg and got a new San Diego AMD 939-pin chip ($350). Also decided to pick up 2 GB of memory ($250). Now I'm reading they moved to a 940-pin chip (does that extra pin really make a difference), but everything's already ordered.
This one upgrade that started at $600 ended up being $1350. I'd like to blame it on the video card, but this is probably the most expensive upgrade percentage-wise (almost 70% of the cost to originally make the rig) that I've done to date.
Yes, and on Slashdot, it's apparently not uncommon to read book reviews that sound like they were done by the Comic Book Guy. "The author refers to Neo's tool as a 'spoon' instead of a 1954 New Age stainless-steel piece of cutlery? Unthinkable!"
Reason 2: Most people run what their computer-knowledgable son/cousin/neighbor runs. If said son/cousin/neighbor puts OS X on their Dell, and they like it, they'll keep it.
Reason 3: Not everyone likes Mac. I know, a shock. But I prefer the open architecture of the PC. Ever since I opened a G3 and read the words "warranty void if removed" on a processor dip switch, I've had a bad taste for the platform. I like the OS, the iPod is ok (if expensive), their hardware I really don't care either way.
"The whole advantage to the Mac is that it's of a better quality, more stable, and has an Apple logo."
Disagree. Case in point: Microsoft. Everyone universally agrees that Windows is shoddy, unstable (or at least "more unstable" than some others OSes) and the Windows logo doesn't help at all. It's gotten better, but that's MS's stigma.
However, rather than fix Windows outright (which they've been doing for ages) they quietly release the original Xbox and new Media Centers with new UIs. I don't know if you've noticed, but these new UIs are rock-solid. I've shown Media Center to a friend and they had no idea Microsoft could make anything that elegant.
What's my point? Brand recognition as having "quality, stability and logo" means nothing. Microsoft could very easily make very stable inroads with "innovation" by sticking to their new creations. Nothing Apple is doing would get changed by giving the OS to manufacturers. If they stuck with Microsoft's "only run Media Center on these hardware configs" plan, they'd be fine.
What I want to know is why people keep misspelling "lose". It seems like I see this every day. And it's not even phonetically correct (it's easy to see "loose" would be pronounced "looce").
If you're going to go that route, include Super Mario Brothers as well. What I'm talking about was the first game that was not viewed as a "game" by the public. It was viewed as entertainment along the lines of a movie.
Tetris, Mario, Myst, Sims -- those are all mass-market games, but none of them were considered on a truly movie-like, artistic level. GTA3 was.
That's an incredibly cynical approach. This generation we've had:
* Zelda Windwaker, that took the idea of cel shading and perfected it. * Halo 2, which perfected playing online with an incredibly strong interface. * PSP, which shows you can turn a game console into a strong movieplayer and vice versa. * World of Warcraft, that brought MMORPGs to the masses and along the way redefined "art" in a video game. * Grant Theft Auto 3, the first truly mass market game.
All of these have great gameplay AND great graphics. Would WW, Wow, etc. be the same without great graphics? Not really. The core gameplay would likely still be fun, but there's a reason we don't play Space Invaders anymore.
The developers have proven time and time again that new power is a tool, and they're more than happy to get their creative juices flowing to use it (think Katamari Damarcy). Yes, there's fluff -- there was fluff with the 80s generation of games too (remember ET)? The gaming industry, however, produces a lot of original ideas to combat the fluff, and frankly it's never been stronger.
Also, MS has already said (Time article this week) they plan to hold Halo 3 until the PS3 launch. That means launch the console early, see how it does, then bolster it with Halo 3 sales -- interesting strategy.
* The hardware absolutely rocks. The tech demos they showed off were incredibly impressive, and it's very clear that Cell (programmed correctly) will be the most powerful platform out there. * There's already signs of DRM and locking down the platform. There was a slide on "hardware security built-in" (they probably meant the way the Cell protects data when shuttling it off to another processor, but it's easy to get the double-meaning). * As it stands right now, this thing is going to blow the doors off of Xbox 360. This is coming from an Xbox fan (I've got 30 titles lined up in the den). I'm a gamer, but I also love the best hardware. Barring what Nintendo introduces (and they could very well surprise us, despite the "graphics don't matter" marketing they've been doing), this is clearly going to be the most powerful console around.
However, MS IS looking at web and e-mail. A little over a week ago I got a call from an MS recruiter asking if I wanted to interview for the MSN web services division (my resume was posted online). It was my first ever call from MS (although I've approached them a few times before).
Basically, they're looking for people to code things like Outlook Live, which is essentially a web service edition of Outlook Web Access. According to the recruiter, they seem to be going full-speed toward services (while keeping an eye on the cashcows).
Does it really make sense to use the word "boom" when referring to the Mars missions nowadays? Wouldn't it be better PR to say "Hey, it worked! Onto stage 2!" instead of "we've completed the boom"?
I've been looking to replace one of my gaming machines with a Mac. How are the dual-processor G5s for World of Warcraft? Can I just slot an nVidia 6800 in there (standard AGP)?
That said, we often don't get time to properly review it.
I remember reviewing for GameSpot (back in the dot-com days), receiving a game and having 1 week to write a review. You may be thinking "One week, so what?" but you've got to paint a picture of the game accurately enough that it answers a key question for the consumer: "Should I buy this thing or not?" I remember a few times I gave low review score to certain magazines on games that should've been higher (Twisted Metal 1, why did I rate you so poorly) and gave high scores to games that didn't deserve it (look up "Crazy Ivan").
Slashdot Mirror
"This one would seemingly fit in but looks to be executed to lower quality than those in the display."
Low quality? This mod is phenominal. If you had a team of designers and millions of dollars, you could have what Steve Jobs supposedly has. The rest of us will admire what one guy has done.
I will give this man a crisp $100 bill if he steps forward to claim it.
You mean the Muppets are different because the writers, puppetteers, etc. are different than they were over 20 years ago? Gasp!
Newsflash: your childhood was not all it's cracked up to be. Atari wasn't that good, the B-52s were NEVER cool, some of the writing on the Muppet Show downright stunk. Funny? Nearly always. But rarely "witty or zinging".
I laughed. That's all that really matters. If you don't like it *gasp again!*, click your close button.
That's a bit of a misnomer. The people getting banned weren't "exploring", they were exploiting.
Some of them enter a "protected area", get killed by the Guardians of Blizzard a few times (super mobs) and walk away with an imaginary badge (and screenshots) saying "they did it." That's fine.
Some would find ways to enter the areas as ghosts, or kill mobs they weren't supposed to (killing the king from Old Ironforge because he can't get there). That's not ok, and they got banned because of it.
It's been suggested numerous times to allow auctions to be viewable on the web for Wow, but they don't seem to go for it. That would enable a good deal of immersion for me (I'm always wondering how my auctions are doing).
Well, actually, from the article it sort of sounds like a multibranch computing article I read a while back. I'm not sure if Intel actually went through with this, but the idea was to have a CPU process multiple "paths" ahead of time.
So, for example, for a simple if statement waiting on user input, part of the CPU would process the "true" result of the statement and part would process the "false" one. When the user made a decision, one would be used and one would be thrown out. In theory, computing these branches ahead of time was supposed to be faster than doing things linearly.
Again, though, I'm not sure Intel went through with this. They were the subject of the article.
Stupid me... I thought "supports Athlon 64" on the new board meant, you know, actually supporting Athlon 64. I don't keep up with AMD to know that they switched pin numbers on the same chip.
Thanks. Still not sure why they had to make two chips one pin off though...
Perhaps someone can explain to me (either from an engineering or economic background) why this new stuff costs so much?
Just this weekend I saw the new nVidia 7800 and said to myself "It's expensive, but I'd like to get one". Bought the card ($600). Since my current AMD ASUS board didn't support PCI Express, I picked up a new one ($150). The board said it supported Athlon 64 chips, but when I got it it was 939-pins. The chip I was using was 754-pins. Went back to Newegg and got a new San Diego AMD 939-pin chip ($350). Also decided to pick up 2 GB of memory ($250). Now I'm reading they moved to a 940-pin chip (does that extra pin really make a difference), but everything's already ordered.
This one upgrade that started at $600 ended up being $1350. I'd like to blame it on the video card, but this is probably the most expensive upgrade percentage-wise (almost 70% of the cost to originally make the rig) that I've done to date.
Yes, and on Slashdot, it's apparently not uncommon to read book reviews that sound like they were done by the Comic Book Guy. "The author refers to Neo's tool as a 'spoon' instead of a 1954 New Age stainless-steel piece of cutlery? Unthinkable!"
Why run OS X on generic PCs, anyways?
Reason 1 (the most important): it's cheaper.
Reason 2: Most people run what their computer-knowledgable son/cousin/neighbor runs. If said son/cousin/neighbor puts OS X on their Dell, and they like it, they'll keep it.
Reason 3: Not everyone likes Mac. I know, a shock. But I prefer the open architecture of the PC. Ever since I opened a G3 and read the words "warranty void if removed" on a processor dip switch, I've had a bad taste for the platform. I like the OS, the iPod is ok (if expensive), their hardware I really don't care either way.
"The whole advantage to the Mac is that it's of a better quality, more stable, and has an Apple logo."
Disagree. Case in point: Microsoft. Everyone universally agrees that Windows is shoddy, unstable (or at least "more unstable" than some others OSes) and the Windows logo doesn't help at all. It's gotten better, but that's MS's stigma.
However, rather than fix Windows outright (which they've been doing for ages) they quietly release the original Xbox and new Media Centers with new UIs. I don't know if you've noticed, but these new UIs are rock-solid. I've shown Media Center to a friend and they had no idea Microsoft could make anything that elegant.
What's my point? Brand recognition as having "quality, stability and logo" means nothing. Microsoft could very easily make very stable inroads with "innovation" by sticking to their new creations. Nothing Apple is doing would get changed by giving the OS to manufacturers. If they stuck with Microsoft's "only run Media Center on these hardware configs" plan, they'd be fine.
What I want to know is why people keep misspelling "lose". It seems like I see this every day. And it's not even phonetically correct (it's easy to see "loose" would be pronounced "looce").
If 99% of the traffic on said highway consists of high speed chases, you have a serious problem with the highway that should be addressed.
I have yet to see any "party" user interface for finding games like Halo 2. Have you even played the game?
If you're going to go that route, include Super Mario Brothers as well. What I'm talking about was the first game that was not viewed as a "game" by the public. It was viewed as entertainment along the lines of a movie.
Tetris, Mario, Myst, Sims -- those are all mass-market games, but none of them were considered on a truly movie-like, artistic level. GTA3 was.
That's an incredibly cynical approach. This generation we've had:
* Zelda Windwaker, that took the idea of cel shading and perfected it.
* Halo 2, which perfected playing online with an incredibly strong interface.
* PSP, which shows you can turn a game console into a strong movieplayer and vice versa.
* World of Warcraft, that brought MMORPGs to the masses and along the way redefined "art" in a video game.
* Grant Theft Auto 3, the first truly mass market game.
All of these have great gameplay AND great graphics. Would WW, Wow, etc. be the same without great graphics? Not really. The core gameplay would likely still be fun, but there's a reason we don't play Space Invaders anymore.
The developers have proven time and time again that new power is a tool, and they're more than happy to get their creative juices flowing to use it (think Katamari Damarcy). Yes, there's fluff -- there was fluff with the 80s generation of games too (remember ET)? The gaming industry, however, produces a lot of original ideas to combat the fluff, and frankly it's never been stronger.
Also, MS has already said (Time article this week) they plan to hold Halo 3 until the PS3 launch. That means launch the console early, see how it does, then bolster it with Halo 3 sales -- interesting strategy.
I'll boil it down: here's what you need to know.
* The hardware absolutely rocks. The tech demos they showed off were incredibly impressive, and it's very clear that Cell (programmed correctly) will be the most powerful platform out there.
* There's already signs of DRM and locking down the platform. There was a slide on "hardware security built-in" (they probably meant the way the Cell protects data when shuttling it off to another processor, but it's easy to get the double-meaning).
* As it stands right now, this thing is going to blow the doors off of Xbox 360. This is coming from an Xbox fan (I've got 30 titles lined up in the den). I'm a gamer, but I also love the best hardware. Barring what Nintendo introduces (and they could very well surprise us, despite the "graphics don't matter" marketing they've been doing), this is clearly going to be the most powerful console around.
However, MS IS looking at web and e-mail. A little over a week ago I got a call from an MS recruiter asking if I wanted to interview for the MSN web services division (my resume was posted online). It was my first ever call from MS (although I've approached them a few times before).
Basically, they're looking for people to code things like Outlook Live, which is essentially a web service edition of Outlook Web Access. According to the recruiter, they seem to be going full-speed toward services (while keeping an eye on the cashcows).
Does it really make sense to use the word "boom" when referring to the Mars missions nowadays? Wouldn't it be better PR to say "Hey, it worked! Onto stage 2!" instead of "we've completed the boom"?
Here were my thoughts.
*scratches head* Not with that video card... Maybe use a group of them as a rendering farm or something for a dual-processor G5.
I've been looking to replace one of my gaming machines with a Mac. How are the dual-processor G5s for World of Warcraft? Can I just slot an nVidia 6800 in there (standard AGP)?
That said, we often don't get time to properly review it.
I remember reviewing for GameSpot (back in the dot-com days), receiving a game and having 1 week to write a review. You may be thinking "One week, so what?" but you've got to paint a picture of the game accurately enough that it answers a key question for the consumer: "Should I buy this thing or not?" I remember a few times I gave low review score to certain magazines on games that should've been higher (Twisted Metal 1, why did I rate you so poorly) and gave high scores to games that didn't deserve it (look up "Crazy Ivan").
It's pretty much the same for OS software.