No shit sherlock. I did say that the beauty of the C64 was in my not so humble opinion.
Yeah, you say a lot of things.
However that doesn't attract from the non-subjective examples I gave to demolish the claim that computers "back in the day" were ugly off-white boxes. I gave several examples of personal computers that were not ugly, not off-white and not boxes. They were innovative designs that were both attractive and functional. Disagreeing with my opinion is pointless; my opinion wasn't the meat of my comment.
The opinion was plainly the bulk of your comment. You named one worthy design, the ZX81; the other example was a Cray?! What planet do you live on where that is considered a desktop? (Oh, "outside the PC world." Nevermind then.) You comment is barely anything more than a breathless rant. You'd think you'd know better, with a low user ID like that. So grab a beverage, grandpa, because I am about to educate you.
If you could see past the rage-filled miasma clouding your vision you could have read that I had no high praise for the Mac II; I only said it was marginally better than a C64, which had no philisophy about it whatsoever. A C64 was not some award-winning bit of industrial design; it was a fat kayboard, with a huge external power brick, and a multicoloured logo. That's it. The Mac II was the first mac that didn't have a built-in display (ala Mac Classic) and was supposed to be modular. You know, like a square. So they went with a swiss type of design, which employs a grid over your entire shape and is big on, yes, squares and straight lines. Because form follows functionality. The C64, in its first incarnation, was an oblong shape rounded at the front and taller at the back. The keyboard was totally nonstandard, even for the time. It was no big deal at all. But neither was the Mac II, I just said it had a lot more thought put into it than a C64. You forget that at the time the Mac had other industrial innovations, like external keyboards (with award-winning keycaps, I kid you not) and was attempting to mimic some of the PC world's expandibility options. Like I said, it was no big deal, but a big difference from the Commodore.
Huh? Do you even know what a Mac II looks like? It's an ugly off-white box. It's a horrible looking computer. It's got nothing on the sleek all-in-one design of the C64 with its sloped keyboard, rounded edges and chunky appearance. The C64 looked like something that belonged in the Star Wars universe. The Mac II looked like something you used in the construction of buildings.
Really.Star Wars, huh. Well, I know where you are coming from then: Clueless, USA. Where the fuck do you get exposed engines, blaster shielding, rivets, carbon scoring etc from a C64? Amazing. Find me something in all of Star Wars that even remotely looks like a C64. You won't, 'cause you can't, 'cause you are emoting from your anus.
(I apologize terribly if my contraction of because has offended your delicate sensibilities.)
Man, I didn't use the word Amiga even once in my earlier comment. Who the fuck are you replying to, because it's obviously not me.
I used the word Amiga, as an example of other desktops at the time that attempted a modicum of design. Go check, I'll wait.
By the way, I really despise it when people use words like "sigh" in their posts, as if somehow they were dictacting to the computer and it was capturing their every grunt and exhalation. Do you write "umm" and "burp" as well? If not, then don't be a pompous ass and write "sigh" as if somehow that conveys your exasperation with the world that lies beneath you. PS: How was that for tone?
Outstanding. Hopefully I have conveyed the fullness of my imagined sigh more effectively to you, in a manner you can fully comprehend, without disappointing you with such shortcuts.
Though in my not so humble opinion they still can't hold a candle to that beautiful C64.
(sigh. Just goes to show you, its all about tone on slashdot.)
I read your post. I think you are projecting some of your personal preferences onto the memories of these old computers and end up with surprising results.
For instance - and as we are talking subjectives here it can't go far - I simply cannot understand how you decide a C64 is 'better designed', aesthetically, than a Mac II? They use practically the same school of thought, that Star Trek II man-ridges and swiss lines sort of thing that was big in the early 80s. I mean, I can understand a slight preference for one over the other (in my case definitely the Mac) but saying they are worlds apart is baffling.
Ditto the Amiga - I had 5 of those suckers and I would say their meager efforts went no fruther than the token swoop that Dell puts on their cases. Again, I would compare an Amiga 3000 to the supposedly hideous Mac II and say, you see a difference?
The Sinclair was beautiful I'll give you that. But the rest, I think you are basking in the warm glow of Amiga memories or the bitter reverie of changing a video card in the Mac II. But design wise, they are not far apart at all, not even remotely so. Put a Mac Classic case design versus, oh, any of them. The Smithsonian agrees with me.
Seriously, what other company could get away with this?
Are you serious? The answer is: lots.
Any high-end jeweller or fashion icon: Prada, Gucci, Victoria's Secret, etc.
Any high-end stereo maker: Bang & Olufsen, Denon, etc.
Any high-end car maker: BMW, Mercedes, Acura, LEXUS... hell, even Saturn
Seriously, Apple has always tried to create a 'high end' in personal computers; whether or not you think they were successful is a matter of opinion, but the brand recognition alone is definitely in the Top 10 Brands worldwide. Something to consider.
Then you aren't looking at the problem. It isn't "all metadata is bad." It is "metadata can be bad."
Oh.. well we are agreeing with each other then. I realize that 'metadata CAN be bad', much like other data. I think it was just ill communication on my part. My overall point was that I don't consider metadata to be any of a threat than 'normal' data, for good or bad. Sorry for the confusion.
Um... not sure? I love PDFs myself, I use them constantly. Its sort of a must on a Mac (clipboard is PDF, all apps that can Print can make PDF, etc). So I agree with you completely. Maybe it was just my bad GIF joke (after all that is EVEN MORE standardized. but it wasnt serious)
That's exactly my point. ID3 tags are standardized [wikipedia.org] (ok, at least there is a standard subset of tags) and reflect objective characteristics of the tagged file (author, title, genre, and so on). It is perfectly fine for these tags to exist at file level... User-defined information, on the other hand, should not be copied "by default" if you move the file to a different context.
Ok - I still don't see the problem. MP3 tags are user-defined (although often fed by CDDB or the like). So really isn't it just a matter of having the right importers plugged into the metadata engine? Perhaps that is a mess in the making, but I don't see how it would be much different from handling other filetypes... After all we have had 'metadata' in the form of file properties, icons, thumbs.db, dot-underscore files etc.
I see your point; what I don't see is how this is any more (or less) dangerous than things we are doing with our files currently. Word's propensity to attach/append something improper is a feature we have today.
Adding flexible metadata at the level of files does not seem such a good idea to me, especially for files that need to be transmitted or shared with others. Catalogation systems are going to be different from user to user, and from organization to organization - which is going to be messy if you mix multiple systems together.
What makes you say that? MP3 files, and their ID3 tags, don't seem to be an issue really?
I like the concept of metadata in the filesystem because it moves beyond the 'folder barrier'. For instance I can create a smart folder that gathers files with tag x into a 'view' in that window. These files can exist within multiple 'folders', as opposed to living in only one place. Spotlight on OS X is a good example; I use it at work all the time to create a folder with all photoshop files with layers named y, or with resolution z, etc.
Really I think the solution as far as sensitive metadata goes is a kind of 'airlock' around Vista; when sending files out to the network or an external device, prompt the user to confirm the metadata; let them uncheck fields that are no good to go out. Of course MS could have solved a number of office faux-pas type issues with such handling in Outlook ("are you sure you wan to Reply to All? are you sure you want to attach this 50MB Powerpoint?") but have yet to demonstrate a concrete effort to do so.
So that we don't all suffer, we need to break up the country. Split it along the Mississippi or midwestern states. All the blue people move west, and all the red people move east.
I think you're paranoid and I don't think you even know what you're paranoid about. Hell, Microsoft isn't requiring credit card numbers from people anymore so you don't even have to give them any clear identifying information.
Well, fair enough if you think so - I have been stuck on enough demographic/marketing 'lists' that the idea is disturbing to me. Perhaps you have escaped this fate yourself; getting unending phone calls, junk mail, special offers, a mountain of spam, and other such nuisances are not a price I want to pay just to play video games. Does that make more sense? In other words, pre-Live, I don't have to worry about having my details harvested. Post-Live, that is an issue. Why on earth would I agree to that?
And your second point is not true; you still need to sign in with Passport. I could lie about stuff, sure, but I'd rather just not bother altogether.
If I'm not being clear, I think the latter worry is probably a symptom of a piece of wood lodged in the ole rectal orifice - which, by the way, SHOULD be private...
Sure, think what you like.:) I'm happy to wear the metaphorical tinfoil hat; I have my reasons.
Out of curiousity, what frightens you about it? Do you buy stuff at online stores? What's different about the xbox?
Here's the thing. It has to do with Passport, and what MS intends you to use the Xbox360 for.
Theoretically (because this does not really mimic my own life): I spend a lot of time in the living room. I have a shiny new X360. I use it for all the frills; media streaming, most of my game playing (including my audio dialog with other players and friends), watching DVDs, listening to music. All that celestial jukebox stuff. I sign into this thing with my Passport, so they know exactly who I am. And it is connected via a (mandatory) broadband link, pretty much doing as it pleases as far as connecting to the network.
Y'see where I'm going with this? A fairly complete little snapshot of my demographic tastes in software and media. And I'm continually reporting this information to Microsoft.
So yeah, frightened is an understatement. Even if they did not use this very valuable information for nefarious purposes I hardly trust them to even lock it up properly.
I'd be completely cool with everything Live is about if I didn't have to give it my name. But I do, so no go.
One thing I notice in a lot of the X360 reviews is a big exuberance for the Marketplace idea. Having tried it myself, I came away with two impressions: 1. it is very slick and well-designed, probably the nicest UI design MS has ever done; and 2. I wouldn't put my money in that thing in a million years. It sort of frightens me - Passport has always frightened me. And it is uninteresting on the whole, as far as content goes. Retro gaming is cool and all but I'd rather do that on a handheld. The little downloadable games are cute but familiar and overpriced, and paying for stuff like UI skins is quite daft, IMHO. Yeah I like Penny Arcade too but jeezus why does their content cost 4X as much? I do like the bits about player IDs and whatnot but - maybe its just me, but I like to hide behind my online personas when I go to game. I don't necessarily want to be monitored by my friends and whatnot. (Maybe there is a Hide option?)
So the question is, how much of a value is the X360 if I really couldn't care less about the Live Marketplace? Is it intrinsic to the value of the box or is it a nice add-on? I'm waiting to see what the PS3 can do either way, but if Marketplace is Xbox's 'edge' then its kind of boring. (I have no doubt I will be able to voice-chat and do multiplayer/internet on the Revolution and PS3.)
Dammit! I was hoping Firefly would be the perfect test-case for the iTunes episode-selling model. I think its perfect for situations like this - if the fans really want it, they can vote directly with their dollars, and the hell with the myopic networks. Alas, a little too late it would seem.
I don't see us winning this fight. Best we can hope for is a draw.
Don't despair too much. We The Geeks can just go create another internet. Except this time, with hookers, and blackjack!
Er... this time, with strong crypto, and Ipv6!
One option you may entertain, if you have a PSP, is the 'Prince of Persia Revelations' title. It seems that they went back and tried to "fix" parts of Warrior Within, while expanding the levels for the PSP version. I have no idea how successful they were but it might be worth a try.
Bill's choices in charities don't make sense. He's basically taken money from the first world (with monopolistic practices) and is busily pouring it down the blackhole of 3rd world charities.
The money that he pours into Africa gets stolen by the corrupt heads of the countries. As long as African truckers can buy whores for a few dollars at truck stops, they'll be having "dry sex" [villagevoice.com] and spreading AIDs.
He could copy Soros
Oho. You hateful motherfucker. I got that far and had all the confirmation I needed of where you get your propaganda. Back to little green footballs with you, racist troll.
Actually, many would argue that Giuliani made more of a difference than Bin Laden did on Sept 11th. I would agree with them, and would many (if not most) others.
I would disagree with this for a simple reason: how many people outside the United States have heard of Giuliani, or knew anything that he did on 9/11? Not many. On the other hand, bin Laden is known worldwide and everyone is very clear on what he and his organization did.
So Giuliani *did* make a difference, in making what Bin Laden attempted to do less meaningful. Distructive, yes. Painful, yes. Did it make the US back down and do what he wanted? No.
He sure did. He got his Holy War in the middle east; there's no way bin Laden could have coaxed that into existence without 9/11, he was quite marginal before then. I'd call it total success for him, actually. Not to mention the fact that a big chunk of the US population has been wringing its hands over terror attacks ever since (as Gwynne Dyer puts it, "there are heavy smokers who worry about terrorism").
I've had friends who got into publishing and journalism after school... and they weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Assuming more of the same in the industry, I'm not prone to taking much seriously when journalists stray from objectivity and decide to weigh in with opinion. Which is to say, I'm not much of a fan of journalism. I'd rather they turn the cameras on, shoot some footage, and let me decide for myself.
That is impossible.
Where are they pointing the camera? Framing what? Who is mic'd? And what other audio is present? For how long do you shoot?
The idea that you can somehow remove all subjectivity from the newsgathering process is a false one.
I'm typing on a Mac, and unfortunately X11 on the Mac sucks: it's poorly integrated with the desktop and it is rather slow.
It doesn't suck on a Mac with a proper 3d card. My X11 is nice and hardware-accelerated, its great. You can even cut/paste between Aqua and the X11 environment. Transparancy, minimizing, etc is all there, not sure what you mean.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you say a lot of things.
However that doesn't attract from the non-subjective examples I gave to demolish the claim that computers "back in the day" were ugly off-white boxes. I gave several examples of personal computers that were not ugly, not off-white and not boxes. They were innovative designs that were both attractive and functional. Disagreeing with my opinion is pointless; my opinion wasn't the meat of my comment.
The opinion was plainly the bulk of your comment. You named one worthy design, the ZX81; the other example was a Cray?! What planet do you live on where that is considered a desktop? (Oh, "outside the PC world." Nevermind then.) You comment is barely anything more than a breathless rant. You'd think you'd know better, with a low user ID like that. So grab a beverage, grandpa, because I am about to educate you.
If you could see past the rage-filled miasma clouding your vision you could have read that I had no high praise for the Mac II; I only said it was marginally better than a C64, which had no philisophy about it whatsoever. A C64 was not some award-winning bit of industrial design; it was a fat kayboard, with a huge external power brick, and a multicoloured logo. That's it. The Mac II was the first mac that didn't have a built-in display (ala Mac Classic) and was supposed to be modular. You know, like a square. So they went with a swiss type of design, which employs a grid over your entire shape and is big on, yes, squares and straight lines. Because form follows functionality. The C64, in its first incarnation, was an oblong shape rounded at the front and taller at the back. The keyboard was totally nonstandard, even for the time. It was no big deal at all. But neither was the Mac II, I just said it had a lot more thought put into it than a C64. You forget that at the time the Mac had other industrial innovations, like external keyboards (with award-winning keycaps, I kid you not) and was attempting to mimic some of the PC world's expandibility options. Like I said, it was no big deal, but a big difference from the Commodore.
Huh? Do you even know what a Mac II looks like? It's an ugly off-white box. It's a horrible looking computer. It's got nothing on the sleek all-in-one design of the C64 with its sloped keyboard, rounded edges and chunky appearance. The C64 looked like something that belonged in the Star Wars universe. The Mac II looked like something you used in the construction of buildings.
Really. Star Wars, huh. Well, I know where you are coming from then: Clueless, USA. Where the fuck do you get exposed engines, blaster shielding, rivets, carbon scoring etc from a C64? Amazing. Find me something in all of Star Wars that even remotely looks like a C64. You won't, 'cause you can't, 'cause you are emoting from your anus.
(I apologize terribly if my contraction of because has offended your delicate sensibilities.)
Man, I didn't use the word Amiga even once in my earlier comment. Who the fuck are you replying to, because it's obviously not me.
I used the word Amiga, as an example of other desktops at the time that attempted a modicum of design. Go check, I'll wait.
By the way, I really despise it when people use words like "sigh" in their posts, as if somehow they were dictacting to the computer and it was capturing their every grunt and exhalation. Do you write "umm" and "burp" as well? If not, then don't be a pompous ass and write "sigh" as if somehow that conveys your exasperation with the world that lies beneath you. PS: How was that for tone?
Outstanding. Hopefully I have conveyed the fullness of my imagined sigh more effectively to you, in a manner you can fully comprehend, without disappointing you with such shortcuts.
I thought Ives first design was the eMate?
Still a wicked design, IMHO.
(sigh. Just goes to show you, its all about tone on slashdot.)
I read your post. I think you are projecting some of your personal preferences onto the memories of these old computers and end up with surprising results.
For instance - and as we are talking subjectives here it can't go far - I simply cannot understand how you decide a C64 is 'better designed', aesthetically, than a Mac II? They use practically the same school of thought, that Star Trek II man-ridges and swiss lines sort of thing that was big in the early 80s. I mean, I can understand a slight preference for one over the other (in my case definitely the Mac) but saying they are worlds apart is baffling.
Ditto the Amiga - I had 5 of those suckers and I would say their meager efforts went no fruther than the token swoop that Dell puts on their cases. Again, I would compare an Amiga 3000 to the supposedly hideous Mac II and say, you see a difference?
The Sinclair was beautiful I'll give you that. But the rest, I think you are basking in the warm glow of Amiga memories or the bitter reverie of changing a video card in the Mac II. But design wise, they are not far apart at all, not even remotely so. Put a Mac Classic case design versus, oh, any of them. The Smithsonian agrees with me.
Are you serious? The answer is: lots.
Any high-end jeweller or fashion icon: Prada, Gucci, Victoria's Secret, etc.
Any high-end stereo maker: Bang & Olufsen, Denon, etc.
Any high-end car maker: BMW, Mercedes, Acura, LEXUS... hell, even Saturn
Seriously, Apple has always tried to create a 'high end' in personal computers; whether or not you think they were successful is a matter of opinion, but the brand recognition alone is definitely in the Top 10 Brands worldwide. Something to consider.
Its reeeeely fast.
Oh.. well we are agreeing with each other then. I realize that 'metadata CAN be bad', much like other data. I think it was just ill communication on my part. My overall point was that I don't consider metadata to be any of a threat than 'normal' data, for good or bad. Sorry for the confusion.
Um... not sure? I love PDFs myself, I use them constantly. Its sort of a must on a Mac (clipboard is PDF, all apps that can Print can make PDF, etc). So I agree with you completely. Maybe it was just my bad GIF joke (after all that is EVEN MORE standardized. but it wasnt serious)
Ok - I still don't see the problem. MP3 tags are user-defined (although often fed by CDDB or the like). So really isn't it just a matter of having the right importers plugged into the metadata engine? Perhaps that is a mess in the making, but I don't see how it would be much different from handling other filetypes... After all we have had 'metadata' in the form of file properties, icons, thumbs.db, dot-underscore files etc.
I see your point; what I don't see is how this is any more (or less) dangerous than things we are doing with our files currently. Word's propensity to attach/append something improper is a feature we have today.
Now *there's* a solution I can get behind!
From this point on, I am exporting all my shared .doc files as giant GIFs. No harm no foul.
(If it seems like I'm joking... I am. But only sorta.)
What makes you say that? MP3 files, and their ID3 tags, don't seem to be an issue really?
I like the concept of metadata in the filesystem because it moves beyond the 'folder barrier'. For instance I can create a smart folder that gathers files with tag x into a 'view' in that window. These files can exist within multiple 'folders', as opposed to living in only one place. Spotlight on OS X is a good example; I use it at work all the time to create a folder with all photoshop files with layers named y, or with resolution z, etc.
Really I think the solution as far as sensitive metadata goes is a kind of 'airlock' around Vista; when sending files out to the network or an external device, prompt the user to confirm the metadata; let them uncheck fields that are no good to go out. Of course MS could have solved a number of office faux-pas type issues with such handling in Outlook ("are you sure you wan to Reply to All? are you sure you want to attach this 50MB Powerpoint?") but have yet to demonstrate a concrete effort to do so.
Oh.
Well, lemme know if you need a hand with that.
Ok, mate, fair enough - the half-cocked crusade in your name, then.
Now go talk some sense into your fellow countrymen. Don't shuffle off with 'Don't blame me, I voted for Kodo'.
sincerely,
an alarmed Canadian
Well, fair enough if you think so - I have been stuck on enough demographic/marketing 'lists' that the idea is disturbing to me. Perhaps you have escaped this fate yourself; getting unending phone calls, junk mail, special offers, a mountain of spam, and other such nuisances are not a price I want to pay just to play video games. Does that make more sense? In other words, pre-Live, I don't have to worry about having my details harvested. Post-Live, that is an issue. Why on earth would I agree to that?
And your second point is not true; you still need to sign in with Passport. I could lie about stuff, sure, but I'd rather just not bother altogether.
If I'm not being clear, I think the latter worry is probably a symptom of a piece of wood lodged in the ole rectal orifice - which, by the way, SHOULD be private...
Sure, think what you like. :) I'm happy to wear the metaphorical tinfoil hat; I have my reasons.
Here's the thing. It has to do with Passport, and what MS intends you to use the Xbox360 for.
Theoretically (because this does not really mimic my own life): I spend a lot of time in the living room. I have a shiny new X360. I use it for all the frills; media streaming, most of my game playing (including my audio dialog with other players and friends), watching DVDs, listening to music. All that celestial jukebox stuff. I sign into this thing with my Passport, so they know exactly who I am. And it is connected via a (mandatory) broadband link, pretty much doing as it pleases as far as connecting to the network.
Y'see where I'm going with this? A fairly complete little snapshot of my demographic tastes in software and media. And I'm continually reporting this information to Microsoft.
So yeah, frightened is an understatement. Even if they did not use this very valuable information for nefarious purposes I hardly trust them to even lock it up properly.
I'd be completely cool with everything Live is about if I didn't have to give it my name. But I do, so no go.
So the question is, how much of a value is the X360 if I really couldn't care less about the Live Marketplace? Is it intrinsic to the value of the box or is it a nice add-on? I'm waiting to see what the PS3 can do either way, but if Marketplace is Xbox's 'edge' then its kind of boring. (I have no doubt I will be able to voice-chat and do multiplayer/internet on the Revolution and PS3.)
The idea that the 'dvorak' keyboard is somehow superior is a myth.
Dammit! I was hoping Firefly would be the perfect test-case for the iTunes episode-selling model. I think its perfect for situations like this - if the fans really want it, they can vote directly with their dollars, and the hell with the myopic networks. Alas, a little too late it would seem.
Don't despair too much. We The Geeks can just go create another internet. Except this time, with hookers, and blackjack!
Er... this time, with strong crypto, and Ipv6!
One option you may entertain, if you have a PSP, is the 'Prince of Persia Revelations' title. It seems that they went back and tried to "fix" parts of Warrior Within, while expanding the levels for the PSP version. I have no idea how successful they were but it might be worth a try.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
I think you answered your 2nd line with the 1st...
(paraphrasing here) "If you had all that money, why not have an orbiting deathray sattelite, just in case?"
That neatly sums up why, despite all his charity, we should worry a little about Bill.
Oho. You hateful motherfucker. I got that far and had all the confirmation I needed of where you get your propaganda. Back to little green footballs with you, racist troll.
I would disagree with this for a simple reason: how many people outside the United States have heard of Giuliani, or knew anything that he did on 9/11? Not many. On the other hand, bin Laden is known worldwide and everyone is very clear on what he and his organization did.
So Giuliani *did* make a difference, in making what Bin Laden attempted to do less meaningful. Distructive, yes. Painful, yes. Did it make the US back down and do what he wanted? No.
He sure did. He got his Holy War in the middle east; there's no way bin Laden could have coaxed that into existence without 9/11, he was quite marginal before then. I'd call it total success for him, actually. Not to mention the fact that a big chunk of the US population has been wringing its hands over terror attacks ever since (as Gwynne Dyer puts it, "there are heavy smokers who worry about terrorism").
That is impossible.
Where are they pointing the camera? Framing what? Who is mic'd? And what other audio is present? For how long do you shoot?
The idea that you can somehow remove all subjectivity from the newsgathering process is a false one.
It doesn't suck on a Mac with a proper 3d card. My X11 is nice and hardware-accelerated, its great. You can even cut/paste between Aqua and the X11 environment. Transparancy, minimizing, etc is all there, not sure what you mean.