"If you're not ready for Vista, you can downgrade to Windows XP without affecting your Sony VAIO warranty and switch back to Vista at any time."
To express that in the Form of Underpants Gnomes Strategy (a "FUGS expression" for you MBA-types):
Release horrifyingly bad new OS
Charge people full price for it
Allow people to run old OS with the same license instead
Profit!
It seems to me that what Microsoft has really accomplished here is a way to charge a higher premium for Windows XP. Even if Vista is a miserable failure, it is a win for Microsoft, unless, of course, customers switch to a non-Microsoft OS and stay there.
So... Apple drops "Computer" from its name... Whoops! Now really is the time to push even harder with those "Hi, I'm a Mac" ads. Likewise Ubuntu...
Backslash can be used to allow continuing the program line past a carriage-return, but you almost never have to use it. Python is smart enough to do the right thing when it sees an open bracket, a comma separated list, and a carriage-return.
I was thinking about this on and off over the course of the day today (geek). I guess the difference is that if you did it the way I mentioned, the user is manipulating a virtual camera and giving directions to this unseen camera (zoom out, zoom in). In contrast, the way you describe it, the user is manipulating the image and not some unseen camera. Of the two, the alternative of manipulating the image is far more concrete than one of some imaginary or unseen camera. Having said that, I now agree you and the GPP poster that this is probably more intuitive.
The language about geometry would be just a side discussion.
Well, quite obviously, it is funny because you used "big-assed" in your post (which, incidentally, Firefox would prefer I changed to big-ashed, which is only mildly funny). To repeat, the original post was funny because each pixel has two oversized muffins... Those pixels aren't one-cheeked, they are, in fact, badonkadonk pixels.
As I mentioned in my reply to your post here your mental model isn't quite right. The screen space is constant, the amount of the map you display varies. If the map has a constant "physical" size, then zooming in shows less of the map not more. Zooming out, in turn, shows more of the map, in reduced detail.
Methinks someone was not paying attention to Grover on Sesame Street: "Near!... (bounce, bounce, bounce)... Far!"
Fingers apart == far == zoom out, fingers together == near == zoom in. If you drew an imaginary rectangle over the physical location being viewed, zooming out would make the rectangle bigger (widening as the GP poster phrased it), and zooming in would make the rectangle smaller over the actual physical location (narrowing). Pretty darn intuitive, if you ask me.
Not likely, component video doesn't support Vista's DRM techniques (can't send HDMI), so Vista excludes it because your PC might "leak" "premium content" that is "protected."
And don't even get me started on Sumerian. Professional Sumerologists still can't render half of the agglutinative morphemes that appear in Sumerian verbs.
Pffft. That's because they don't have DirectX 10 on Vista, which has had agglutinative morpheme rendering for like forever already.
the system isn't quite as bad as we make it out to be here.
Many of us here on Slashdot look at the patent system through software-colored glasses, if you will. Viewed from this perspective, the patent system is the antithesis of the effect it was intended to produce.
Software patents, instead, create a system where only large firms can afford to operate in the market. Individuals can get a patent, but will likely not be able to afford bringing suit against an infringing firm. Worse, patent disputes often involve reciprocal countersuits: "Oh yeah! Well you're infringing on five of our patents..."
It is copyright that protects and encourages innovation and industry in the software world, not patents. It is copyright that makes GPL and Linux possible.
From the software perspective, the patent system is broken. If you're inventing a new drug, or a new class of machine; that's probably a different story.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
You're partly right. In the beginning it may have been the increase in sales they thought they would force. But years worth of evidence has shown the opposite.
The real reason, I think, to apply DRM, even if it has been cracked, is to show that the publisher took some "reasonable" measure to assert their "rights" in relation to the content. Once they do that, the entire body of copyright and IP law (like the DMCA) becomes part of their arsenal. They can now wield these legal weapons against anyone they choose.
They're still trying to force sales, they're just trying to do this through the law. What happens when it's your content (family photos, personal recordings...) that gets "protected," however? That's the real evil of DRM.
In related news, gangs of emboldened mice terrorize cats in Massachusetts neighborhoods. One cat, who preferred to remain anonymous, puts it in his own words, "So I was just standin' there, right, snappin' my fingers and hangin' out, OK? And these freaks in white gloves start beatin' me up! I was like, 'Hey it's cool dudes!' but they kept sayin' somethin' about 72 cheeses in Florida, or somethin'." Said cat is currently in "Groovy" condition in a nearby hospital.
Edison: Well... OK, how about this... We run these high frequency rays through people onto film plates and get pictures from it.
Assistant: Tesla did that too.
E: What? Oh, OK. Ummm... I know we'll build a big lightning generator that shoots lots of electric sparks all over the place!
A: Tesla did that a couple times.
E: Damn it! Is there anything Tesla didn't do? Wait! I know! We'll replace all the cherries in chocolate covered cherries with two-month-old mayonnaise! Yeah! Did Tesla do that?
A: Uhh... No. But I think Tesla would be more clever about it.
There are plenty of actual liars who are in the media all of the time. Moore is not one of them.
Sure... he's not a liar, he's just a deceiver. Moore twists intent through juxtaposition, thereby subverting the truth. I won't claim others don't do it, but he is, by far, one of the worst and most obvious examples of this practice.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
To express that in the Form of Underpants Gnomes Strategy (a "FUGS expression" for you MBA-types):
It seems to me that what Microsoft has really accomplished here is a way to charge a higher premium for Windows XP. Even if Vista is a miserable failure, it is a win for Microsoft, unless, of course, customers switch to a non-Microsoft OS and stay there.
So... Apple drops "Computer" from its name... Whoops! Now really is the time to push even harder with those "Hi, I'm a Mac" ads. Likewise Ubuntu...
I think the poster meant "aspirational" as in "to aspirate," as in "mouth-breathing."
I could be wrong.
Indeed:
From Moving To Python From Other Languages.
I was thinking about this on and off over the course of the day today (geek). I guess the difference is that if you did it the way I mentioned, the user is manipulating a virtual camera and giving directions to this unseen camera (zoom out, zoom in). In contrast, the way you describe it, the user is manipulating the image and not some unseen camera. Of the two, the alternative of manipulating the image is far more concrete than one of some imaginary or unseen camera. Having said that, I now agree you and the GPP poster that this is probably more intuitive.
The language about geometry would be just a side discussion.
Well, quite obviously, it is funny because you used "big-assed" in your post (which, incidentally, Firefox would prefer I changed to big-ashed, which is only mildly funny). To repeat, the original post was funny because each pixel has two oversized muffins... Those pixels aren't one-cheeked, they are, in fact, badonkadonk pixels.
As I mentioned in my reply to your post here your mental model isn't quite right. The screen space is constant, the amount of the map you display varies. If the map has a constant "physical" size, then zooming in shows less of the map not more. Zooming out, in turn, shows more of the map, in reduced detail.
Methinks someone was not paying attention to Grover on Sesame Street: "Near! ... (bounce, bounce, bounce)... Far!"
Fingers apart == far == zoom out, fingers together == near == zoom in. If you drew an imaginary rectangle over the physical location being viewed, zooming out would make the rectangle bigger (widening as the GP poster phrased it), and zooming in would make the rectangle smaller over the actual physical location (narrowing). Pretty darn intuitive, if you ask me.
Nah, but I'll photocopy the pages from the dictionary containing those words, and mail them to the RIAA.
The attached note would read:
Not likely, component video doesn't support Vista's DRM techniques (can't send HDMI), so Vista excludes it because your PC might "leak" "premium content" that is "protected."
Pffft. That's because they don't have DirectX 10 on Vista, which has had agglutinative morpheme rendering for like forever already.
"You are coming to a sad realization: Cancel or Allow?"
If they'd simply make their communications stacks compliant with RFC 3514 we could filter that crap out at the router. Hmmmph.
Many of us here on Slashdot look at the patent system through software-colored glasses, if you will. Viewed from this perspective, the patent system is the antithesis of the effect it was intended to produce.
Software patents, instead, create a system where only large firms can afford to operate in the market. Individuals can get a patent, but will likely not be able to afford bringing suit against an infringing firm. Worse, patent disputes often involve reciprocal countersuits: "Oh yeah! Well you're infringing on five of our patents..."
It is copyright that protects and encourages innovation and industry in the software world, not patents. It is copyright that makes GPL and Linux possible.
From the software perspective, the patent system is broken. If you're inventing a new drug, or a new class of machine; that's probably a different story.
You're partly right. In the beginning it may have been the increase in sales they thought they would force. But years worth of evidence has shown the opposite.
The real reason, I think, to apply DRM, even if it has been cracked, is to show that the publisher took some "reasonable" measure to assert their "rights" in relation to the content. Once they do that, the entire body of copyright and IP law (like the DMCA) becomes part of their arsenal. They can now wield these legal weapons against anyone they choose.
They're still trying to force sales, they're just trying to do this through the law. What happens when it's your content (family photos, personal recordings...) that gets "protected," however? That's the real evil of DRM.
Scientist #1: So I put the new Zune in that tank and ran some juice from the AllSpark into it.
Scientist #2: Wow! Cool! What did it turn into?
Sci 1: Let's say "a big, steaming pile of awesome."
Sci 2: What do you mean?
Sci 1: It turned into this animatronic version of Mr. Hanky...
None, gazillions only contain dudes.
The Pedantic Web!
In related news, gangs of emboldened mice terrorize cats in Massachusetts neighborhoods. One cat, who preferred to remain anonymous, puts it in his own words, "So I was just standin' there, right, snappin' my fingers and hangin' out, OK? And these freaks in white gloves start beatin' me up! I was like, 'Hey it's cool dudes!' but they kept sayin' somethin' about 72 cheeses in Florida, or somethin'." Said cat is currently in "Groovy" condition in a nearby hospital.
Perhaps no one can prove they were damaged (the word "affected" is not specific enough) because no one was actually damaged. Just a thought.
Edison: I know, we'll make the current alternate.
Lab assistant: Tesla already did that.
Edison: Well... OK, how about this... We run these high frequency rays through people onto film plates and get pictures from it.
Assistant: Tesla did that too.
E: What? Oh, OK. Ummm... I know we'll build a big lightning generator that shoots lots of electric sparks all over the place!
A: Tesla did that a couple times.
E: Damn it! Is there anything Tesla didn't do? Wait! I know! We'll replace all the cherries in chocolate covered cherries with two-month-old mayonnaise! Yeah! Did Tesla do that?
A: Uhh... No. But I think Tesla would be more clever about it.
Yes, as in "strong and promotes growth."
My favorite bit on the site was the free tool bar that reads "What would Jesus download?"
Now that's cognitive disonance in action!
Sure... he's not a liar, he's just a deceiver. Moore twists intent through juxtaposition, thereby subverting the truth. I won't claim others don't do it, but he is, by far, one of the worst and most obvious examples of this practice.