"Then I saw the huge Segway display at Innoventions and realized it was just more smart marketing by Dean Kamen. The yokels were all saying "gaaaahlee where's the gas tank?" and similar comments, then getting lessons in gyroscopic stabilization and Michelin tire alchemy from the well-rehearsed cast members. Hey, if they can get high visibility at Epcot, that's better than/.,right? B)"
that's cool, i didn't know they were having a segway display at innoventions...but, actually, they've been showing Kamen stuff off there for a while...i was there like 2 or 3 summers ago, and they had a couple of Dean Kamen inventions, most notably the wheelchair he worked on that could balance on two wheels (again - gyroscopes), and also go and down stairs...
what about from an overall business standpoint? it may be cheaper to administer, but what about other considerations...
certainly there are more applications, etc, available to run on microsoft platforms then on *nix platforms...and since there are many more options for the microsoft platforms, it's easier to find one with all the options you want...how do you quantify this difference...
also, while i know some businesses have switched and do use *nix platforms, i'm willing to bet the vast majority of companies (especially non-hi-tech companies that still use computers) are microsoft users...therefore, the unofficial standard for most things is gonna be microsfot's format...unfair, i agree, but the truth more often then not...that's why everyone uses.doc word processing documents, and.xls spreadsheet files, etc...what's gonna happen when a client sends your a power point presentation, and you're sitting there with your *nix box...
obviously there are *nix alternatives to most of those windows things, but again, they're usually not as robust (er, i mean not as many features, because they're generally more robust in terms of not crashing)...
in any case, they may be cheaper in an overall "cost to administor" sense, but overall there are unquantifiable things that need to be considered...
note: obviously i'm a microsoft user, although i do have experience at past companies (and college) using both Unix & Linux...so, don't slam me saying i have *no* idea about them...i admit i'm no expert, but still...
i didn't say that start menu was "Exactly" like browsing your program files folder...i said it was "basically" like it, or something like that...in any case, my point was that they've made it easy to access all the things you need to launch individual programs by placing shortcuts to them in the Start=>Programs heirarchy...so, the Start=>Programs menu, is basically an easier way to navigate the program files structure...assuming you're looking to launch applications...
i also brought up that you can use "My Computer" to search through the directory structure, and i agree completely, i always turn on all file extensions, and show all system files by default...
the other thing i hate is the thing XP has where when you're browsing through the structure it doesn't show you anything until you click on the "Show all files" after the "This folder contains system files" or something like that warning message...of course, i turn all that off by default too...
i think the person obviously understand that "Soviet Russia" was the old U.S.S.R...but, the actual reference is from russain comedian Yakov Smirhnoff (sp?) which several other people here pointed out...
his whole schtick was doing jokes like...
"In American you can always find a party...
In Soviet Russia, the party finds you..."
maybe in the year 2300 someone will take the slashdot archives and start posting them daily to a web log...i wonder if people will get the "FP" and "In Soviet Russia" references...
i dunno, the start button is, after all, mainly a shortcut to the "Program Files" folder of your heirarchy...it makes it very easy to go "Start=>Programs" and now you're browsing in the "Program Files" folder just as if you'd gone into the file system...as long as most programs install here, it makes it pretty easy to run the program you're looking for...
"On the Mac, I was used to double-clicking the hard drive, then navigating through the directories to the application I wanted to use, and launching it from there"
plus, it's not like they took that option away...no one has stopped you from double-clicking on "My Computer" and navigating into any of the hard drives...
but in "Hackers" Kate Libby (Angelina Jolie) is a hot, female, hacker...what's that? huh, your saying that's not reality...damn, becuase everything else in the movie is *so realistic*...
forgot one point...this game is good for those so called legal issues too..everyone can install the game, but to play multiplayer, you only need about half of the people to have it in their drive...for instance, if you're playing with 2 players, the game requires atleast one person to have the CD in their drive...if you're playing with 3 players, it requires 1 CD...4 players, 2 CD's, etc...and so on and so forth...not exactly free...but half of what you'd pay for a game that requires CD's for everyone!
even though it's been out for a while, in my office we still love playing Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds (and the expansion pack Clone Campaigns)...it's a great time playing against each other on our network, or teaming up and playing against others on the zone...
Re:Negative review, but not (intentional) flamebai
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 2
Keeping the women and children in Helms deep was brilliant. It conveyed once and for all what the battle at Helms deep meant. It would make no sense in the book, that kind of raw emotion is difficult to come by in writing. In the movie, if the orcs get by the defenders the people are rohan are literally finished THAT NIGHT. If the orcs sweep through helms deep in the book, they simply finish the women and children off later. That's the magic behind this, by having everyone in Helms Deep it is not simply a battle for some land.. it is a battle for the very existence of these people and their families.
i could be wrong, it's been a while since i read the books...but doesn't the same thing happen with the women and the children in the books? i could've sworn that in the books they sent the women and children to the caves, just like they did in the movie...if not, where did they go? i can't remember..
Re:The Review of a Film Student and Tolkien Fan
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 2
it's been a couple years since I've read the books, but if I'm not mistaken, the ents are supposed to show up and slay the fleeing oruku-ki orcs... don't hold your breath. it doesn't happen.
well, the ents certainly do a lot of killing when they get to isrengard...wether it's just regular orcs, or uruk-hai, it's hard to tell because with the ents on the screen, the orcs are very small...it think it was acceptable...
that was put in so that people who haven't read the book could understand that Arwen is willing to give up immortality to be with Aragorn...which of course comes into play at the end of the 3rd book (or movie)...
shelob will be in the 3rd movie, jackson wanted the climactic ending to be the battle of helm's deep...although i think shelob attacking frodo & sam would have been pretty climactic....
and the "visit" to Isrengard just hasn't occured yet in the timeline of events, it's after the battle of helm's deep, and after the ents attack isrengard...it will also be in the third movie...
i agree...just like form FOTR the movie ended with people (those who hadn't read the book of course) thinking Gandalf was dead...this movie should have ended with peole (again, who haven't read the book) thinking Frodo was dead...that would've been great...of course, i'm sure they would've just spoiled it when the ROTK trailers came out...in any case, i still loved the movie...
i agree with you completely...until the battle of helm's deep (and even some places in there), there was barely a scene wher gimli was not made into comic relief...whether it was him falling down repeatedly during their run...or belching and eating like a pig...or something else, he was the Jar Jar binks of TT, almost solely for comic relief...even at Helm's deep, the whole thing with him not being able to see over the wall...from FOTR and of course the book, I always saw Gimli as a character with a lot of pride, etc...and this movie reduced him to a comic sidekick...
the one joke i actually didn't mind was when he told aragorn "don't tell the elf" when he was about to toss him...this was a nice callback to the first movie when he says "no one tosses a dwarf"...
i have tickets to see the movie at 8:00 tonight, but i was just curious how good do the ents look? the reviewer in my local small town paper said something about they looked "unrealistic" and like "muppets crossed with plants", or something like that...yeah, way to go jackass, cause you really have a good idea of what a "realistic" ent would look like...so, how do they look???
Slashdot Mirror
first off, i remember when slashdot posted his short story "0wnz0red", and i really enjoyed reading it...
secondly, not that i'm saying i'm cheap or anything, but why would i go buy the book, when i just downloaded the pdf for free?
"Then I saw the huge Segway display at Innoventions and realized it was just more smart marketing by Dean Kamen. The yokels were all saying "gaaaahlee where's the gas tank?" and similar comments, then getting lessons in gyroscopic stabilization and Michelin tire alchemy from the well-rehearsed cast members. Hey, if they can get high visibility at Epcot, that's better than /.,right? B)"
that's cool, i didn't know they were having a segway display at innoventions...but, actually, they've been showing Kamen stuff off there for a while...i was there like 2 or 3 summers ago, and they had a couple of Dean Kamen inventions, most notably the wheelchair he worked on that could balance on two wheels (again - gyroscopes), and also go and down stairs...
what about from an overall business standpoint? it may be cheaper to administer, but what about other considerations...
.doc word processing documents, and .xls spreadsheet files, etc...what's gonna happen when a client sends your a power point presentation, and you're sitting there with your *nix box...
certainly there are more applications, etc, available to run on microsoft platforms then on *nix platforms...and since there are many more options for the microsoft platforms, it's easier to find one with all the options you want...how do you quantify this difference...
also, while i know some businesses have switched and do use *nix platforms, i'm willing to bet the vast majority of companies (especially non-hi-tech companies that still use computers) are microsoft users...therefore, the unofficial standard for most things is gonna be microsfot's format...unfair, i agree, but the truth more often then not...that's why everyone uses
obviously there are *nix alternatives to most of those windows things, but again, they're usually not as robust (er, i mean not as many features, because they're generally more robust in terms of not crashing)...
in any case, they may be cheaper in an overall "cost to administor" sense, but overall there are unquantifiable things that need to be considered...
note: obviously i'm a microsoft user, although i do have experience at past companies (and college) using both Unix & Linux...so, don't slam me saying i have *no* idea about them...i admit i'm no expert, but still...
i didn't say that start menu was "Exactly" like browsing your program files folder...i said it was "basically" like it, or something like that...in any case, my point was that they've made it easy to access all the things you need to launch individual programs by placing shortcuts to them in the Start=>Programs heirarchy...so, the Start=>Programs menu, is basically an easier way to navigate the program files structure...assuming you're looking to launch applications...
i also brought up that you can use "My Computer" to search through the directory structure, and i agree completely, i always turn on all file extensions, and show all system files by default...
the other thing i hate is the thing XP has where when you're browsing through the structure it doesn't show you anything until you click on the "Show all files" after the "This folder contains system files" or something like that warning message...of course, i turn all that off by default too...
i think the person obviously understand that "Soviet Russia" was the old U.S.S.R...but, the actual reference is from russain comedian Yakov Smirhnoff (sp?) which several other people here pointed out...
his whole schtick was doing jokes like...
"In American you can always find a party...
In Soviet Russia, the party finds you..."
maybe in the year 2300 someone will take the slashdot archives and start posting them daily to a web log...i wonder if people will get the "FP" and "In Soviet Russia" references...
i dunno, the start button is, after all, mainly a shortcut to the "Program Files" folder of your heirarchy...it makes it very easy to go "Start=>Programs" and now you're browsing in the "Program Files" folder just as if you'd gone into the file system...as long as most programs install here, it makes it pretty easy to run the program you're looking for...
"On the Mac, I was used to double-clicking the hard drive, then navigating through the directories to the application I wanted to use, and launching it from there"
plus, it's not like they took that option away...no one has stopped you from double-clicking on "My Computer" and navigating into any of the hard drives...
how about "Alice in Wonderland"...the article forgot to mention that, but there were some good AIW themes/similarities in the Matrix...
He must be confusing it with the porn movie with a similar name..."Matrixxx"...
here's another similar one that i used to play around with...Robocode...
but in "Hackers" Kate Libby (Angelina Jolie) is a hot, female, hacker...what's that? huh, your saying that's not reality...damn, becuase everything else in the movie is *so realistic*...
"Kim just crashed"
yeah, but see that's the one chance a computer geek will get to say something like, "Kim just went down on me"...
forgot one point...this game is good for those so called legal issues too..everyone can install the game, but to play multiplayer, you only need about half of the people to have it in their drive...for instance, if you're playing with 2 players, the game requires atleast one person to have the CD in their drive...if you're playing with 3 players, it requires 1 CD...4 players, 2 CD's, etc...and so on and so forth...not exactly free...but half of what you'd pay for a game that requires CD's for everyone!
even though it's been out for a while, in my office we still love playing Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds (and the expansion pack Clone Campaigns)...it's a great time playing against each other on our network, or teaming up and playing against others on the zone...
Keeping the women and children in Helms deep was brilliant. It conveyed once and for all what the battle at Helms deep meant. It would make no sense in the book, that kind of raw emotion is difficult to come by in writing. In the movie, if the orcs get by the defenders the people are rohan are literally finished THAT NIGHT. If the orcs sweep through helms deep in the book, they simply finish the women and children off later. That's the magic behind this, by having everyone in Helms Deep it is not simply a battle for some land.. it is a battle for the very existence of these people and their families.
i could be wrong, it's been a while since i read the books...but doesn't the same thing happen with the women and the children in the books? i could've sworn that in the books they sent the women and children to the caves, just like they did in the movie...if not, where did they go? i can't remember..
it's been a couple years since I've read the books, but if I'm not mistaken, the ents are supposed to show up and slay the fleeing oruku-ki orcs... don't hold your breath. it doesn't happen.
well, the ents certainly do a lot of killing when they get to isrengard...wether it's just regular orcs, or uruk-hai, it's hard to tell because with the ents on the screen, the orcs are very small...it think it was acceptable...
that was put in so that people who haven't read the book could understand that Arwen is willing to give up immortality to be with Aragorn...which of course comes into play at the end of the 3rd book (or movie)...
shelob will be in the 3rd movie, jackson wanted the climactic ending to be the battle of helm's deep...although i think shelob attacking frodo & sam would have been pretty climactic....
and the "visit" to Isrengard just hasn't occured yet in the timeline of events, it's after the battle of helm's deep, and after the ents attack isrengard...it will also be in the third movie...
the ring would be cool...but how about the firey unblinking eye...that could work too...
i agree...just like form FOTR the movie ended with people (those who hadn't read the book of course) thinking Gandalf was dead...this movie should have ended with peole (again, who haven't read the book) thinking Frodo was dead...that would've been great...of course, i'm sure they would've just spoiled it when the ROTK trailers came out...in any case, i still loved the movie...
The dwarf jokes got a little tiring.
i agree with you completely...until the battle of helm's deep (and even some places in there), there was barely a scene wher gimli was not made into comic relief...whether it was him falling down repeatedly during their run...or belching and eating like a pig...or something else, he was the Jar Jar binks of TT, almost solely for comic relief...even at Helm's deep, the whole thing with him not being able to see over the wall...from FOTR and of course the book, I always saw Gimli as a character with a lot of pride, etc...and this movie reduced him to a comic sidekick...
the one joke i actually didn't mind was when he told aragorn "don't tell the elf" when he was about to toss him...this was a nice callback to the first movie when he says "no one tosses a dwarf"...
all that said, i still loved the movie...
really, how cute is he?
reminds me of a great quote from the simpsons:
Bart: "What's a muppet?"
Homer: "A muppet is not quite a mop, not quite a puppet, but man(laughs) so to answer your question I don't know"
i have tickets to see the movie at 8:00 tonight, but i was just curious how good do the ents look? the reviewer in my local small town paper said something about they looked "unrealistic" and like "muppets crossed with plants", or something like that...yeah, way to go jackass, cause you really have a good idea of what a "realistic" ent would look like...so, how do they look???
sounds like something right out of the Bastard Operator from Hell