Despite all the posts "insightful"-ness, it's flat wrong on many points.
First, digital backs are for medium format cameras, not 35mm. This sensor is not digital back; it's a CMOS that is mounted inside the camera, behind the shutter.
Second, as others have already noted, the size of the sensor has nothing to do with the coverage of the view finder. The benefit of a full-frame censor is that, for instance, a 28mm lens on the DSLR gives the same coverage as the same lens on a 35mm camera. On the previous 1D, that lens would be approximately equivalent to a 36mm lens (x1.3); on a D60, it would be equivalent to a 45mm (x1.6). That poses a problem for wide angle photography.
I haven't used Office XP (or Windows XP), but in previous versions of Office, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint all use MDI. If Microsoft has changed this, it probably means that they have finally realized that MDI is a Bad Thing. That just adds credence to Apple's argument.
Keep in mind that Apple's article was not to bash Windows, but to help developers switching to Mac OS X develop consistent and user friendly applications. So, if they say MDI is a bad interface design, it's not entirely relevant whether Microsoft continues to use it or not; they are simply saying, "Don't use MDI on the Mac."
Microsoft realized you quite often need a single, application-wide menu bar, and thus, the God-awful MDI was born. MDI is perhaps the most annoying thing ever to come out of Microsoft. Apple's article points out flaws with this approach, including having window sizes confined by the parent window. Further, one of the advantages of Windows, that is now available in Mac OS X, is that you could easily display one window from one application, and another window from another window. However, MDI negates this, because the MDI parent window essentially takes over the screen. Most people I see using an MDI application, such as one of the Office, maximize the application. If they want to view something in Word, say, while simultaneous viewing something in Excel, they have to go through awkward resizing of parent and children windows.
What does this have to do with a single menu bar? The MDI parent window is there primarily as a container for the application menu bar (and perhaps to hold a bevy of toolbars, which Apple rightfully dismisses). It's also there because a non-MDI application in Windows does not remain running when there are no open documents. In Mac OS X, this is no problem, since the menu bar itself indicates which application is in the foreground.
If what I say doesn't make sense to you, hold on to that Mac for a bit longer before you hawk it on eBay. I'll bet you will grow to appreciate the benefits a shared menu bar provides.
Which is precisely why Apple needs to provide human interface guidelines and articles like this. Otherwise, we'll wind up with interfaces that are designed by geeks, for geeks.
Thank goodness somebody did! That's one of my favorite lines from Sam & Max, along with "Are you as confused as I am?" "More so!" and, of course, "Get bent."
Sounds like all those "get paid to surf the web" offers. Are they still around? It was a model that didn't work on the web, and I'd be surprised if it would work for TV.
The fact is, companies advertise because they actually want you to buy their stuff; they want your money, they don't want to give you theirs. So, if TV stations relying on advertisers is an "outdated method," then other companies relying on people, you know, actually finding out about their products so they can buy them must also be outdated.
There are plenty of FireWire hard drives (and CD/DVD) burners out there, and Orange Micro makes the FireWire iBot webcams. Epson sells a FireWire adaptor for many of its high-end printers Third parties (e.g., Archos) sell FireWire equipped Zip 250 drives.
As far as the keyboard and mouse...well, let's not push it!
I admit to not being an expert on the DeCSS issue, but I believe a big reason why they went after it is that it would allow users to distribute DVD-video over the internet; i.e., you could play the DVD video off of your hard drive, rather than a DVD. 4.7GB is a lot of data to transfer over the Internet, but connections are getting faster, so it is a legitimate issue. Again, I'm not an apologist of the RIAA and MPAA, but I will admit that the Internet and high-speed connections do offer unprecedented opportunities for widespread piracy. They have a right to be concerned, even if their response is all wrong.
Re:But who is going to stop the End user from...
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 2
I'm certainly not a fan of Palladium either, but what if it made services like this commercially viable? The game companies are going to fret over this because it does enable and encourage piracy (people need to stop denying or making excuses for this). But what if there was a way, be it Palladium or some other method, that enabled the game companies to profit from this? Something like Palladium might not be not be so bad if it opens new markets like this. The markets speak.
To how many people can you distribute that photocopied book? How much will it cost you to do so? How long will it take you?
You'll be able distribute a ROM to thousands or millions of people, without cost (aside from i-net access, for which you are already paying), and in virtually no time at all. So, now I ask you, do you really not see the difference?
But how would porting OS X to Itanium 2 in the megahertz race? We've all heard Apple preaching about the "MHz Myth," and they'd have to keep on preaching if the went with Itanium, which is, like the G4, settled around the 1GHz mark. Now, I don't mean to suggest that the Itanium 2 isn't faster than the G4, or a 2.5 bajillahertz Pentium 4, but that's just the point: Fighting the MHz Myth with Joe Consumer. I think if Apple did look past Motorola, it would be to get on the GHz train, to cash in on the market buzz that comes with these high revving chips.
Besides, what would they do for their portable line? Itanium is meant for high-end servers, not lower powered laptops.
"Those machines with rolled paper" generally use thermal paper, which turns black when it is heated, so sending a black page would make no difference in the amount of toner used...either way, zero toner is used.
I'm highly skeptical of this story. How likely do you really think it is that a woman who would make such a tech support call would have the sophistication required to pop-off the keys and rearrange them? This sounds like an urban myth to me.
You ought to be afraid of Microsoft, for the reason that they are pushing for the the laws that you fear. Naturally, there case and their position over other operating systems would be strengthened if the law required the sort of DRM that they are including in Media Player today and which the plan for Palladium.
Microsoft is a powerful lobbying force. They're already in bed with the music industry, and, as we've seen from the mockery of an anti-trust case, with the government as well.
that million dollars won't be worth much if it takes as long as that Last Theorem by Fermat to solve.
Okie doke, forgive me if I'm missing something here, but is Fermat's Last Theorem the same as the conjecture mentioned in the article? The one that took Dr. Andrew Wiles seven years to solve? If so, why would $1 million not be worth much in 7 years?
There's two ways to look at this. The first is, how much money do I expect to make in the next seven years? I calculated mine, assuming I continue to get the same percent pay raise for each of the next seven years, and let's just say, I won't have made my first million for a few years after that unless we get another dot-com boom or some other such aberation.
The other way is, how much will a million dollars in today's money be worth seven years from now? Assuming the inflation rate for the next seven years matches that of the previous seven years, it'll be worth approximately $850,000 (see this inflation calculator).
So, why will $1 million dollars be a paltry sum in seven years?
Freon sounds really cool. Ha, ha, get it? Freon? Cool? Okay, so it was pretty lame, but this is the first, last, and only time you'll hear me call something from Microsoft cool, so you better enjoy it!
...corporations are now starting to crack down on networked MP3's, not necessarily for the reasons you might think.
Hmmm, let's see..."legal issues, as well as bandwidth issues, and the simple issue of employees wasting their employers time"...yep, those are pretty much exactly the reasons I'd figure a company would crack down. What were the reasons you were expecting?
Re:Product placement
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It was the product placement that annoyed me most about this movie. Sure, there are plot holes on which to nitpick, but I'm willing to suspend belief for that. And I'm even willing to forgive what were actual, blatant ads, such as the billboards that addressed Anderton by name. After all, those were part of the theme of the movie, how we can allow technology to intrude upon our freedom. But the copiously long shots of corporate logos--Bulvaria, Lexus, Nokia--that were simply part of ordinary scenes gave the movie a cheap feel.
The scene that bothered me the most was when Anderton pulled up to his ex-wife's house, and got out of the Lexus. As he walks away from the car, the camera stays on the Lexus logo for a good 10 seconds or so. Here's why it bothered me so much: It seems like Steven Spielberg was taking directoral advice from the advertiser. We're not talking about some NYU film student here; Spielberg's been around the block, and here some advertiser is telling him how to shoot a scene. Steve, I never thought you'd sell out like this.
This cheap feel wouldn't have bothered me so if the movie wasn't otherwise good. But with a film that tries to make moral and societal observations, it's a shame to see it cheapened so.
Re:My one big issue with the film (SPOILER?)
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
The movie was about moral dilemma. Where's the moral dilemma in what you suggest? Why would anybody have a problem with that? Where's the controversy? Why would Cruise's character run?
The theme of the movie, as I see it, is how technology can erode personal privacy. Consider how the billboards know the names of the passers-by. Consider how the spiders invade your home, and how willing the citizens were to interrupt any activity to comply with these scans. Consider, of course, how the pre-cogs can see what you haven't even done yet. A discussion of this dilemma is very timely, and something the Slashdot reader should be able to appreciate.
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
The protagonist could have just asked to be locked in a room until the murder date had passed thereby making the prediction bunk.
I think the authorities would have been happy to oblige. Of course, that's pretty much the point of the pre-crime department: to lock people up in a "room" (let's just call it that, so not to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it) before they're able to commit the crime. If the fact that a crime wasn't committed was accepted as proof that the crime would not be committed, then pre-crime, and the movie, would be a complete failure.
Slashdot Mirror
First, digital backs are for medium format cameras, not 35mm. This sensor is not digital back; it's a CMOS that is mounted inside the camera, behind the shutter.
Second, as others have already noted, the size of the sensor has nothing to do with the coverage of the view finder. The benefit of a full-frame censor is that, for instance, a 28mm lens on the DSLR gives the same coverage as the same lens on a 35mm camera. On the previous 1D, that lens would be approximately equivalent to a 36mm lens (x1.3); on a D60, it would be equivalent to a 45mm (x1.6). That poses a problem for wide angle photography.
Keep in mind that Apple's article was not to bash Windows, but to help developers switching to Mac OS X develop consistent and user friendly applications. So, if they say MDI is a bad interface design, it's not entirely relevant whether Microsoft continues to use it or not; they are simply saying, "Don't use MDI on the Mac."
What does this have to do with a single menu bar? The MDI parent window is there primarily as a container for the application menu bar (and perhaps to hold a bevy of toolbars, which Apple rightfully dismisses). It's also there because a non-MDI application in Windows does not remain running when there are no open documents. In Mac OS X, this is no problem, since the menu bar itself indicates which application is in the foreground.
If what I say doesn't make sense to you, hold on to that Mac for a bit longer before you hawk it on eBay. I'll bet you will grow to appreciate the benefits a shared menu bar provides.
Which is precisely why Apple needs to provide human interface guidelines and articles like this. Otherwise, we'll wind up with interfaces that are designed by geeks, for geeks.
Thank goodness somebody did! That's one of my favorite lines from Sam & Max, along with "Are you as confused as I am?" "More so!" and, of course, "Get bent."
Who isn't?
The fact is, companies advertise because they actually want you to buy their stuff; they want your money, they don't want to give you theirs. So, if TV stations relying on advertisers is an "outdated method," then other companies relying on people, you know, actually finding out about their products so they can buy them must also be outdated.
there's a riot downtown. :( :O :)
stores are being looted!
all units respond now! >:(
officers have arrived. situation under control.
Actually, they come with a ADC and DVI connector, and a DVI-to-VGA adapter.
As far as the keyboard and mouse...well, let's not push it!
I admit to not being an expert on the DeCSS issue, but I believe a big reason why they went after it is that it would allow users to distribute DVD-video over the internet; i.e., you could play the DVD video off of your hard drive, rather than a DVD. 4.7GB is a lot of data to transfer over the Internet, but connections are getting faster, so it is a legitimate issue. Again, I'm not an apologist of the RIAA and MPAA, but I will admit that the Internet and high-speed connections do offer unprecedented opportunities for widespread piracy. They have a right to be concerned, even if their response is all wrong.
I'm certainly not a fan of Palladium either, but what if it made services like this commercially viable? The game companies are going to fret over this because it does enable and encourage piracy (people need to stop denying or making excuses for this). But what if there was a way, be it Palladium or some other method, that enabled the game companies to profit from this? Something like Palladium might not be not be so bad if it opens new markets like this. The markets speak.
You'll be able distribute a ROM to thousands or millions of people, without cost (aside from i-net access, for which you are already paying), and in virtually no time at all. So, now I ask you, do you really not see the difference?
Besides, what would they do for their portable line? Itanium is meant for high-end servers, not lower powered laptops.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Microsoft doesn't have bugs, either. They have service packs...and service packs...and service packs...
You know what? I think I will donate! Let me just grab a credit card number off the Swingline site...
"Those machines with rolled paper" generally use thermal paper, which turns black when it is heated, so sending a black page would make no difference in the amount of toner used...either way, zero toner is used.
I'm highly skeptical of this story. How likely do you really think it is that a woman who would make such a tech support call would have the sophistication required to pop-off the keys and rearrange them? This sounds like an urban myth to me.
You ought to be afraid of Microsoft, for the reason that they are pushing for the the laws that you fear. Naturally, there case and their position over other operating systems would be strengthened if the law required the sort of DRM that they are including in Media Player today and which the plan for Palladium.
Microsoft is a powerful lobbying force. They're already in bed with the music industry, and, as we've seen from the mockery of an anti-trust case, with the government as well.
Okie doke, forgive me if I'm missing something here, but is Fermat's Last Theorem the same as the conjecture mentioned in the article? The one that took Dr. Andrew Wiles seven years to solve? If so, why would $1 million not be worth much in 7 years?
There's two ways to look at this. The first is, how much money do I expect to make in the next seven years? I calculated mine, assuming I continue to get the same percent pay raise for each of the next seven years, and let's just say, I won't have made my first million for a few years after that unless we get another dot-com boom or some other such aberation.
The other way is, how much will a million dollars in today's money be worth seven years from now? Assuming the inflation rate for the next seven years matches that of the previous seven years, it'll be worth approximately $850,000 (see this inflation calculator).
So, why will $1 million dollars be a paltry sum in seven years?
Freon sounds really cool. Ha, ha, get it? Freon? Cool? Okay, so it was pretty lame, but this is the first, last, and only time you'll hear me call something from Microsoft cool, so you better enjoy it!
Hmmm, let's see..."legal issues, as well as bandwidth issues, and the simple issue of employees wasting their employers time"...yep, those are pretty much exactly the reasons I'd figure a company would crack down. What were the reasons you were expecting?
The scene that bothered me the most was when Anderton pulled up to his ex-wife's house, and got out of the Lexus. As he walks away from the car, the camera stays on the Lexus logo for a good 10 seconds or so. Here's why it bothered me so much: It seems like Steven Spielberg was taking directoral advice from the advertiser. We're not talking about some NYU film student here; Spielberg's been around the block, and here some advertiser is telling him how to shoot a scene. Steve, I never thought you'd sell out like this.
This cheap feel wouldn't have bothered me so if the movie wasn't otherwise good. But with a film that tries to make moral and societal observations, it's a shame to see it cheapened so.
The theme of the movie, as I see it, is how technology can erode personal privacy. Consider how the billboards know the names of the passers-by. Consider how the spiders invade your home, and how willing the citizens were to interrupt any activity to comply with these scans. Consider, of course, how the pre-cogs can see what you haven't even done yet. A discussion of this dilemma is very timely, and something the Slashdot reader should be able to appreciate.
I think the authorities would have been happy to oblige. Of course, that's pretty much the point of the pre-crime department: to lock people up in a "room" (let's just call it that, so not to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it) before they're able to commit the crime. If the fact that a crime wasn't committed was accepted as proof that the crime would not be committed, then pre-crime, and the movie, would be a complete failure.