I apologize for reintroducing an example that's already been used a hundred times, but couldn't these two descriptions have applied for the LOTR movies, and still been perfectly valid?
For example, I would maintain that the LOTR movies stayed very faithful to the spirit of the books, while I'm sure that many others would complain about various perceived omissions.
I mean, Tolkien fans made lists of their complaints with the films, and they were very specific. But what was the net effect? Most people I knew loved the films, and they went on to win a truckload of Academy Awards?
I haven't read the HHGTG. I've only seen a preview for the film once. I'll probably see it. It could certainly be bad - don't put anything past Hollywood. But, if I were fan of the original - and even a hard-core one at that - I still wouldn't panic yet.
Hawking: Your theory of a donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer, I may have to steal it.
Homer: Wow, I can't believe someone I never heard of is hanging out with a guy like me.
If you think about it, it's almost like a concession to Windows's application model.
Wait! Wait! Hear me out.
On Windows, every app gets its own menu bar. Essentially, every app lives in its own self-contained window. I find this very irritating for 90% of applications (SQL Server, I'm looking at you). On the Mac, by contrast, every app gets essentially full control of its space, including the system's one menu bar, when the app in particular is focused. This, I like.
90% of the time.
But what about apps that really are one window apps. This isn't like iTunes, or iPhoto, because these apps have menu bars, and separate palettes. I mean, apps like Stickies, or a calculator. Furthermore, why do I need the calculator sitting in the Dock, when it's just one window, that I don't need to see most of the time?
Enter Dashboard. Basically, it groups all of these one-window-apps into one place, and lets that particular area come and go as easily as Expose does. Your one-window-apps live in one giant container app, which is then treated like any other multi-window application.
Anyway. I think it's neat. I'll be buying Tiger as soon as it's available.
This is the part I don't get about the iPod Shuffle. Didn't just about every MP3 player do shuffle mode both before and since?
Yes, they do - but the iPod Shuffle is using its random capabilities to make up for what otherwise might be seen as deficiencies, but are there in order to keep the price down.
Essentially:
"Hey, check it out. Apple's got a new iPod. It's got great battery life, it's really light, it's white (heh), and it's 99 bucks!"
"But look at it, it doesn't even have a screen. You can't even see what's playing."
Apple bursts in. "Hey! You didn't need that crap anyway!"
And another post in this thread is correct: this is completely about the exercise market. And that's a smart move for Apple, because every time the iPod would be updated, there would be those in the Slashdot and Mac online communities who would bitch about it skipping while they would run.
Yes, but I was wondering (in a rather snarky manner), which system (the PSP or the DS) the Slashdot editors thought was XTC, and which was Adam Ant. I didn't realize that they might just be referencing some song.
"I like mid-period PSP myself...after they solidified their sound, and got rid of some of the rawness, which I never really thought sounded good. But later on, the library got really pompous and artsy - and then, when the PSP decided to stop touring altogether, I kind of lost interest."
Heh, -1 Flamebait, although I'm not exactly sure which is which...
This is about mid-level, office computer usage
on
The PC Is Not Dead
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I know that Gates is replying to Businessweek, and so he has to claim that PCs will continue to "empower workers" as they gain in processing power and capability, but if he wanted to make an even more convincing argument, he should have talked about home users.
As computers get more and more powerful, I think it's going to mostly affect the two groups of users at the opposite ends of the spectrum: super-users and home users. Super users are those who need all the power they can get, all the time. These are the people working in medicine, in modeling, 3D work, video, etc...
Then you have the home users. Why will this effect home users more than corporate users? Because home usersdo more things! They'll start experimenting with audio and video on the computer (many of them already do). They'll try to run the latest games.
Finally, you have the middle-of-the-road office computer users - probably the very ones that BusinessWeek was originally talking about. These are the people whose PCs are supposedly doomed. And they might be. But the PC as a whole (as the Slashdot title would have us believe?) Not a chance.
Sorry, boss - I didn't realize trying to download a 100 ROMs at once would completely saturate our company pipe. But see, there's this site, Slashdot - and it linked to this site, vgmaps...
Let me get this straight. People think the Iliad is good because it's around 3,000 years old? I think you've got cause and effect mixed up. The Iliad is still around after 3000 years because it's good.
Now doesn't that make more sense? And Jesus...how is the Iliad "overly long and pretentious?" Try reading Gravity's Rainbow.
Slashdot Mirror
Penetration testing?
In that sense, Google Hacking is eye-popping
That's what she said!
</rimshot>
I apologize for reintroducing an example that's already been used a hundred times, but couldn't these two descriptions have applied for the LOTR movies, and still been perfectly valid?
For example, I would maintain that the LOTR movies stayed very faithful to the spirit of the books, while I'm sure that many others would complain about various perceived omissions.
I mean, Tolkien fans made lists of their complaints with the films, and they were very specific. But what was the net effect? Most people I knew loved the films, and they went on to win a truckload of Academy Awards?
I haven't read the HHGTG. I've only seen a preview for the film once. I'll probably see it. It could certainly be bad - don't put anything past Hollywood. But, if I were fan of the original - and even a hard-core one at that - I still wouldn't panic yet.
"And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay...if he fights back, I'll say that he's gaaaayyy...."
"Now we can pass ALL SORTS of crazy laws!@#!"
Hawking: Your theory of a donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer, I may have to steal it.
Homer: Wow, I can't believe someone I never heard of is hanging out with a guy like me.
Bill G.: Where is Longhorn?!
Developer: Sorry, but in this post 9/11 world, WinFS and Avalon just don't seem like that high a priority.
To ZomboTV...
You love...ZomboTV
This is...ZomboTV
Hah hah! April Fool's.
*cough*. Wait! *wheeze* Oh shit! *Keels over.*
If they can combine this with AdWords in the bathroom...they'll make millions!
I think Yahoo has them beat, though - their acquisition of Drinkr has really upped their cred in the blogosphere.
If you think about it, it's almost like a concession to Windows's application model.
Wait! Wait! Hear me out.
On Windows, every app gets its own menu bar. Essentially, every app lives in its own self-contained window. I find this very irritating for 90% of applications (SQL Server, I'm looking at you). On the Mac, by contrast, every app gets essentially full control of its space, including the system's one menu bar, when the app in particular is focused. This, I like.
90% of the time.
But what about apps that really are one window apps. This isn't like iTunes, or iPhoto, because these apps have menu bars, and separate palettes. I mean, apps like Stickies, or a calculator. Furthermore, why do I need the calculator sitting in the Dock, when it's just one window, that I don't need to see most of the time?
Enter Dashboard. Basically, it groups all of these one-window-apps into one place, and lets that particular area come and go as easily as Expose does. Your one-window-apps live in one giant container app, which is then treated like any other multi-window application.
Anyway. I think it's neat. I'll be buying Tiger as soon as it's available.
Heh...
"I, for one, welcome our new overlord automators!"
I wouldn't be surprised if Core Data apps don't get AppleScriptablity for free-to-cheap circa 10.5.
Seems like this is the promise of Automator - once every app can understand Applescript, every app can interact with every other, without the user.
Which one of them will be doing all of the crazy sound effects? And what about the crazy gun nut? "Tackleberry!"
On a more sobering note, I find it deeply disturbing that I was able to remember this much about Police Academy, at a moment's notice.
I initially had the same thought - but that's not really the point. Part of the contest rules state that you have to infect their two Macs.
This is the part I don't get about the iPod Shuffle. Didn't just about every MP3 player do shuffle mode both before and since?
Yes, they do - but the iPod Shuffle is using its random capabilities to make up for what otherwise might be seen as deficiencies, but are there in order to keep the price down.
Essentially:
"Hey, check it out. Apple's got a new iPod. It's got great battery life, it's really light, it's white (heh), and it's 99 bucks!"
"But look at it, it doesn't even have a screen. You can't even see what's playing."
Apple bursts in. "Hey! You didn't need that crap anyway!"
And another post in this thread is correct: this is completely about the exercise market. And that's a smart move for Apple, because every time the iPod would be updated, there would be those in the Slashdot and Mac online communities who would bitch about it skipping while they would run.
Let the Friday the 13th! jokes commence...
If steve could create a sphere with one single button on the outside, that glowed, and had any realistic expectation that it might sell, he would.
The Sphere is perfectly capable of handling my Logitech MX700, which has multiple buttons and a scroll wheel!
Oh wait...this isn't a real product? Crap...
It took me well into your fourth paragraph before I was certain that you weren't absolutely, completely, doggedly serious.
Yes, but I was wondering (in a rather snarky manner), which system (the PSP or the DS) the Slashdot editors thought was XTC, and which was Adam Ant. I didn't realize that they might just be referencing some song.
"I like mid-period PSP myself...after they solidified their sound, and got rid of some of the rawness, which I never really thought sounded good. But later on, the library got really pompous and artsy - and then, when the PSP decided to stop touring altogether, I kind of lost interest."
from the xtc-vs.-adam-ant dept.
Heh, -1 Flamebait, although I'm not exactly sure which is which...
I know that Gates is replying to Businessweek, and so he has to claim that PCs will continue to "empower workers" as they gain in processing power and capability, but if he wanted to make an even more convincing argument, he should have talked about home users.
As computers get more and more powerful, I think it's going to mostly affect the two groups of users at the opposite ends of the spectrum: super-users and home users. Super users are those who need all the power they can get, all the time. These are the people working in medicine, in modeling, 3D work, video, etc...
Then you have the home users. Why will this effect home users more than corporate users? Because home usersdo more things! They'll start experimenting with audio and video on the computer (many of them already do). They'll try to run the latest games.
Finally, you have the middle-of-the-road office computer users - probably the very ones that BusinessWeek was originally talking about. These are the people whose PCs are supposedly doomed. And they might be. But the PC as a whole (as the Slashdot title would have us believe?) Not a chance.
IconDoIt? :)
I imagine, on a 486 it was more like Ican'tDoIt, IDon'tHaveThePower!
Just curious...was BBEdit Lite straining to keep up as you typed that?
Guardian Legend? Faxanadu? DRAGON WARRIOR?!?
Sorry, boss - I didn't realize trying to download a 100 ROMs at once would completely saturate our company pipe. But see, there's this site, Slashdot - and it linked to this site, vgmaps...
People wonly think it's good because it's old
Let me get this straight. People think the Iliad is good because it's around 3,000 years old? I think you've got cause and effect mixed up. The Iliad is still around after 3000 years because it's good.
Now doesn't that make more sense? And Jesus...how is the Iliad "overly long and pretentious?" Try reading Gravity's Rainbow.
Ugh...you could be more right than you know:
All about screencasting (ugh)