If you dislike Flash enough to not have it working on your computer, you're a pretty unlikely customer for what they're selling.
It isn't so much that I dislike flash (though I do). I just hate it when people create websites like that and don't provide an alternative. Frankly, the flash site should be the alternative.
There's no real reason why they couldn't have done most of the stuff they've done with flash in HTML. All they need is a site to provide the same information in the same manner, but with HTML instead of huge flash files. The site takes a while to load on my DSL, so what is the guy surfing on dialup going to experience?
It's just...well, it's just good manners. Whatever their reasons, people who don't like flash shouldn't have to feel neglected.
Library is a very nice application. I've got the demo on my system right now. I don't care for the "bookshelf" view, because it's not really very easy to use. It just seems...I don't know...silly, somehow, like when Apple made the quicktime volume control a dial. Applying an analogue interface in that manner... it's not especially intuitive. Thankfully they provided an alternate browsing view.
Yes, but only if the system you're using has a Quartz Extreme compatible video card. My iBook has one, but my five-year-old iMac does not.
Do you know how long it takes menus to fade on a 400mhz G3?
About...
This...
Long...
It's freaking SLOW. A smarter thing for Apple to have done is to make the OS intelligent enough to know the system in question does NOT have a QE compatible card, and to scale back the glitzy special effects in response. But no, it just presses on ahead regardless. Not especially user-friendly for people stuck with older machines.
But when you step into the realm of "hey, we've got this power-- let's waste it on something!". Then you're doing something really bad. Using pixel shaders to draw drop shadows on semitransparent textured menus or somesuch begins to fall into this territory.
I would qualify this, though. If you're going to FORCE this on people and REQUIRE it for the basic operation of the OS, and not allow people to turn it off, THEN you're pushing things in a bad direction.
For as much as I prefer Mac OS X to any version of Windows, this is one thing that pisses me off...I can't turn off all this worthless eye candy. Do I need semi-transparent menus that fade away? No. Do I have to have them? Apparently. Thus saieth the Steve. Microsoft is at least realistic (in current versions of Windows, at least) to realise that most people don't want the performance-sucking eye candy and lets you turn it off. I wonder if Longhorn will be the first version of Windows to deprive its users of this ability. If so, MS will have learned exactly the wrong lessons from Mac OS X.
The reason the laywer made the complaint of DC was because they were telling lawyer jokes and wouldn't shut up. So they WERE arrested for telling lawyer jokes.
There is no indication that they were causing any kind of disturbance. This case will revolve on the testamony of the people in line with them.
AdAware (latest defs, latest version of app) missed a bunch of stuff which was installed on my system. Not even sure where it came from, since I haven't installed any software on my system in weeks. But this morning, all of a sudden, I'm getting popups and of course simply running the uninstall app does nothing.
AdAware flagged 201 files as adware/spyware/malware, but missed a bunch more, and in any event does not appear to have been able to remove the offending software. MS has caught a lot more, and what's more actually seems to have rooted out the worst of it, crapware from 180searchassistant and from bullseye-network. I'm going to send these assholes a bill for the time it's taken to cleanse my system (and I know I'm going to have to reinstall windows to be 100% certain it's actually gone). I think $150/hr sounds reasonable.
This sounds like a pretty decent system. It would be nice if it had a faster CPU, like 1.33 or 1.5ghz, or even a low-end G5 (not sure if it's available below 1.6ghz, but that would be enough). That might not be economically feasable, but it would be a good BTO option. It wouldn't scavange PowerMac sales, either, because the PowerMacs are far more powerful.
But speaking as someone who just bought a system with only 256mb RAM, that is NOT enough. Not nearly. The first thing I did was drop 512mb of RAM into my iBook. Runs like a dream now.
Everything else sounds OK. DVD burning is nice, but not essential. Having a combo drive at least allows DVD playback, and users have a way to get data off their system and something for backups.
If Apple aims this in the right direction (i.e. non-gamers, non-graphics pros...basically businesses looking for cheap desktops for their secretaries and home users who just want to check their email and surf the web) they could have a winner on their hands. Otherwise (and this assumes of course that the system actually exists) they'll have another Cube on their hands.
See, it doesn't MATTER what kind of metal was used...maybe it was mithril! Hey, who knows? The point was that Sauron imbued it with the greater portion of his power. The ring was Sauron to a certain extent, and thus (at least somewhat) alive. That it was made of metal is irrelevant. It could have been made of stone and done the same things. We could call it magic, but that would be a little like calling the sun a big ball of fire. Accurate, but so unrefined as to seem utterly childish.
Your argument is predicated on the nonsensical idea that the only reason anyone ever buys an iPod is to be seen having an iPod. That only élite, Hollywood types can afford such a device is simply untrue-I own one, my cousin is getting one for Christmas, and I know a few other people who have one. None of us is what you'd call rich.
I'd gladly pay another three hundred dollars for a new one, because the iPod is, quite simply, the most useful device I've bought in ages. I can (and do) take several days' worth of music with me wherever I go in a box the size of a deck of cards. It's easy to copy music to (and from) the iPod. I can use it as a hard drive. The UI is simple and elegant and clear. The iPod stands head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.
In point of fact, NONE of them is even remotely close to the iPod. They suffer from the typical non-Apple feature creep...they think having more things to tweak and settings to fiddle with are more important that easy to use software and a simple, streamlined UI. Apple did it right and now they own the market. Their products are not appreciably more expensive than their competitors', not in light of their vastly superior usability.
Let someone produce a music player as simple and elegant and easy to use as the iPod, and Apple may have some actual competition. Until then, neither Apple nor their customers has any reason to fret.
See, the fact you had to explain it (and probably had to have it explained to you first) tells me I'm closer to being right than you are.
I'm in no way saying that films and television are incapable of being good. But to say complex = good, simple = bad is a binary division *I* don't get. Why can't something simple be good and something complex be bad?
And if you aren't able to be entertained by a beautiful, funny, scary, sexy, well-acted film like Mulholland Drive without completely "understanding it" - well, maybe you need to reexamine what you are looking for in films, and why you have this need to fully understand something to enjoy it.
The problem with this is that I didn't say any such thing. I enjoyed the look and feel of the film. I enjoyed some of the performances. I certainly enjoyed the sexy ladies. But the plot...the plot was so convoluted and muddled that it wasn't even remotely obvious to me. I don't consider myself to be any sort of an intellectual, but I can usually get the gist of a film.
No matter how beautiful and sexy and whatever the film was, nothing at all can change the fact that IT HAD TO BE EXPLAINED AFTER THE FACT. I'm not so stuck on myself that I'd deny that I didn't understand it, not even a little bit. Granted, that's generally the case with "art" cinema, so maybe that was the point.
Is there something wrong with wanting to be able to follow a coherent plot? With wanting to be able to understand the plot without having to refer to Cliff's Notes? With wanting a film to be comprehensible? I don't want condescension. I just want the pieces to fit together into something I can recognise when it's all done.
Of course, as I said before, what I look for in entertainment is MY problem, not yours. If what I like doesn't match with what YOU like, why should I care about that? Are you the arbiter of all that is right and good in entertainment? Do you know better than I what I like? No? Then what do you care?
My point was these things are so muddled that they're incomprehensible. Maybe that's OK for you. I'm guessing you liked Mulholland Dr, a beautifully shot but utterly incomprehensible film. It MUST be deep if I can't understand it, you think, so you pretend along with everyone else who's afraid to look stupid to find it intellectually stimulating.
When I'm watching a movie or a TV show, I really don't WANT to HAVE to analyse what I'm watching to derive its meaning. It's called "entertainment" and I'm watching it because-GASP-I want to be ENTERTAINED. If I want to think, I'll pick up a book.
Thing is, there are about as many different types of anime as there are people, so it's not hard to find something you like. Me, I really like the happy, fun stuff a lot more than the dark, depressing philosophical stuff. If you'd rather watch people brooding than people having fun, that's your problem, not mine. 8^)
So in other words, it's a worthy successor to the original?
Seriously though, the problem with these sci-fi "epic" type anime (Akira, GitS, Lain, Evangelion, whatever) is their convoluted story lines and (typically pathetic) attempts at being deeply philosophical. Usually one begets the other. However they arise, they always get in the way of my being able to just enjoy the show. I love the animation in Akira, but the story is SO BORING that I want to turn it off.
Lost children is a convenient explanation. I'm sure the park can't actually use the technology to see which bits of the park are most popular, where the best place to put concessions, what ride lengths need shortening to maximize throughput or anything like that. Oh no.
Well, if they use it for that, so what? Is there something wrong with the park wanting to make more money? Anyway, if they can see which parts of the park are most popular, they can figure out ways to make the rest of the park more appealing, which makes for a more enjoyable visit. Sounds like a win-win situation to me, but feel free to continue being indignant.
Perhaps it is better that kids are chaperoned by their parents rather than tracked by chips after all.
I suppose you never wandered off from your parents, or got lost somehow? I can't tell you how often I got lost or separated from my parents when we went out. It wasn't that they didn't care enough to keep track of me. It's that I was so darned good at getting away from them. If my Mom could have used an RFID chip to keep track of me at the zoo, she would have done so in a hot second. If I had kids, I'd want something like this myself. I know what it's like to be lost, separated from my parents and afraid. If I knew I could find them easily, I wouldn't have to be so afraid.
So let's see...the park can make more money (the whole reason they're in business to begin with, after all), and you can have a more enjoyable time, and you can keep track of your family. How is this a bad thing, exactly?
Sorry, sorry, I know, it's the whole WinTel marketing machine, but if they really REALLY wanted an "ultra fast" port for moving all that data around, they'd've gone with FireWire 800. Even plain vanilla FireWire is faster than USB 2.0. Sure, USB's THEORETICAL maximum speed is faster than FireWire 400, but in practise it's a lot slower.
That said, it probably is fast enough. But ultra fast? HA!
I bet these guys are the same sort who love to hide behind the first amendment whenever they say stupid shit. They're probably also liberals who claim to be tolerant and who say that all viewpoints are valid.
So much for all that, huh? Bunch of fucking wankers.
Slashdot Mirror
News to me. Glad to hear they've taken some of the criticism they've gotten to heart.
8^D
If you dislike Flash enough to not have it working on your computer, you're a pretty unlikely customer for what they're selling.
It isn't so much that I dislike flash (though I do). I just hate it when people create websites like that and don't provide an alternative. Frankly, the flash site should be the alternative.
There's no real reason why they couldn't have done most of the stuff they've done with flash in HTML. All they need is a site to provide the same information in the same manner, but with HTML instead of huge flash files. The site takes a while to load on my DSL, so what is the guy surfing on dialup going to experience?
It's just...well, it's just good manners. Whatever their reasons, people who don't like flash shouldn't have to feel neglected.
Library is a very nice application. I've got the demo on my system right now. I don't care for the "bookshelf" view, because it's not really very easy to use. It just seems...I don't know...silly, somehow, like when Apple made the quicktime volume control a dial. Applying an analogue interface in that manner... it's not especially intuitive. Thankfully they provided an alternate browsing view.
> it generated $250,000 worth of sales in its first month
You'd think with that amount of money they could hire a web designer to give them an "alternative" HTML-based site in addition to their flash site.
Yes, but only if the system you're using has a Quartz Extreme compatible video card. My iBook has one, but my five-year-old iMac does not.
Do you know how long it takes menus to fade on a 400mhz G3?
About...
This...
Long...
It's freaking SLOW. A smarter thing for Apple to have done is to make the OS intelligent enough to know the system in question does NOT have a QE compatible card, and to scale back the glitzy special effects in response. But no, it just presses on ahead regardless. Not especially user-friendly for people stuck with older machines.
But when you step into the realm of "hey, we've got this power-- let's waste it on something!". Then you're doing something really bad. Using pixel shaders to draw drop shadows on semitransparent textured menus or somesuch begins to fall into this territory.
I would qualify this, though. If you're going to FORCE this on people and REQUIRE it for the basic operation of the OS, and not allow people to turn it off, THEN you're pushing things in a bad direction.
For as much as I prefer Mac OS X to any version of Windows, this is one thing that pisses me off...I can't turn off all this worthless eye candy. Do I need semi-transparent menus that fade away? No. Do I have to have them? Apparently. Thus saieth the Steve. Microsoft is at least realistic (in current versions of Windows, at least) to realise that most people don't want the performance-sucking eye candy and lets you turn it off. I wonder if Longhorn will be the first version of Windows to deprive its users of this ability. If so, MS will have learned exactly the wrong lessons from Mac OS X.
The reason the laywer made the complaint of DC was because they were telling lawyer jokes and wouldn't shut up. So they WERE arrested for telling lawyer jokes.
There is no indication that they were causing any kind of disturbance. This case will revolve on the testamony of the people in line with them.
AdAware (latest defs, latest version of app) missed a bunch of stuff which was installed on my system. Not even sure where it came from, since I haven't installed any software on my system in weeks. But this morning, all of a sudden, I'm getting popups and of course simply running the uninstall app does nothing.
AdAware flagged 201 files as adware/spyware/malware, but missed a bunch more, and in any event does not appear to have been able to remove the offending software. MS has caught a lot more, and what's more actually seems to have rooted out the worst of it, crapware from 180searchassistant and from bullseye-network. I'm going to send these assholes a bill for the time it's taken to cleanse my system (and I know I'm going to have to reinstall windows to be 100% certain it's actually gone). I think $150/hr sounds reasonable.
This sounds like a pretty decent system. It would be nice if it had a faster CPU, like 1.33 or 1.5ghz, or even a low-end G5 (not sure if it's available below 1.6ghz, but that would be enough). That might not be economically feasable, but it would be a good BTO option. It wouldn't scavange PowerMac sales, either, because the PowerMacs are far more powerful.
But speaking as someone who just bought a system with only 256mb RAM, that is NOT enough. Not nearly. The first thing I did was drop 512mb of RAM into my iBook. Runs like a dream now.
Everything else sounds OK. DVD burning is nice, but not essential. Having a combo drive at least allows DVD playback, and users have a way to get data off their system and something for backups.
If Apple aims this in the right direction (i.e. non-gamers, non-graphics pros...basically businesses looking for cheap desktops for their secretaries and home users who just want to check their email and surf the web) they could have a winner on their hands. Otherwise (and this assumes of course that the system actually exists) they'll have another Cube on their hands.
True that. OK, it's magic. 8^) (cue The Cars...)
See, it doesn't MATTER what kind of metal was used...maybe it was mithril! Hey, who knows? The point was that Sauron imbued it with the greater portion of his power. The ring was Sauron to a certain extent, and thus (at least somewhat) alive. That it was made of metal is irrelevant. It could have been made of stone and done the same things. We could call it magic, but that would be a little like calling the sun a big ball of fire. Accurate, but so unrefined as to seem utterly childish.
Good point. I've often wondered why Apple hasn't carried iTunes's crossfade feature over to the iPod. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Your argument is predicated on the nonsensical idea that the only reason anyone ever buys an iPod is to be seen having an iPod. That only élite, Hollywood types can afford such a device is simply untrue-I own one, my cousin is getting one for Christmas, and I know a few other people who have one. None of us is what you'd call rich.
I'd gladly pay another three hundred dollars for a new one, because the iPod is, quite simply, the most useful device I've bought in ages. I can (and do) take several days' worth of music with me wherever I go in a box the size of a deck of cards. It's easy to copy music to (and from) the iPod. I can use it as a hard drive. The UI is simple and elegant and clear. The iPod stands head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.
That's why people buy them.
In point of fact, NONE of them is even remotely close to the iPod. They suffer from the typical non-Apple feature creep...they think having more things to tweak and settings to fiddle with are more important that easy to use software and a simple, streamlined UI. Apple did it right and now they own the market. Their products are not appreciably more expensive than their competitors', not in light of their vastly superior usability.
Let someone produce a music player as simple and elegant and easy to use as the iPod, and Apple may have some actual competition. Until then, neither Apple nor their customers has any reason to fret.
Wow, who pissed in YOUR cheerios, bub?
Wanker.
The way the heat tiles are laid it looks like it's made of Legos.
No problem. We'll just make it illegal to produce a P2P system that doesn't require a valid email address to start up.
See, all you have to do is make more laws until the problems go away! 8^)
See, the fact you had to explain it (and probably had to have it explained to you first) tells me I'm closer to being right than you are.
I'm in no way saying that films and television are incapable of being good. But to say complex = good, simple = bad is a binary division *I* don't get. Why can't something simple be good and something complex be bad?
And if you aren't able to be entertained by a beautiful, funny, scary, sexy, well-acted film like Mulholland Drive without completely "understanding it" - well, maybe you need to reexamine what you are looking for in films, and why you have this need to fully understand something to enjoy it.
The problem with this is that I didn't say any such thing. I enjoyed the look and feel of the film. I enjoyed some of the performances. I certainly enjoyed the sexy ladies. But the plot...the plot was so convoluted and muddled that it wasn't even remotely obvious to me. I don't consider myself to be any sort of an intellectual, but I can usually get the gist of a film.
No matter how beautiful and sexy and whatever the film was, nothing at all can change the fact that IT HAD TO BE EXPLAINED AFTER THE FACT. I'm not so stuck on myself that I'd deny that I didn't understand it, not even a little bit. Granted, that's generally the case with "art" cinema, so maybe that was the point.
Is there something wrong with wanting to be able to follow a coherent plot? With wanting to be able to understand the plot without having to refer to Cliff's Notes? With wanting a film to be comprehensible? I don't want condescension. I just want the pieces to fit together into something I can recognise when it's all done.
Of course, as I said before, what I look for in entertainment is MY problem, not yours. If what I like doesn't match with what YOU like, why should I care about that? Are you the arbiter of all that is right and good in entertainment? Do you know better than I what I like? No? Then what do you care?
My point was these things are so muddled that they're incomprehensible. Maybe that's OK for you. I'm guessing you liked Mulholland Dr, a beautifully shot but utterly incomprehensible film. It MUST be deep if I can't understand it, you think, so you pretend along with everyone else who's afraid to look stupid to find it intellectually stimulating.
When I'm watching a movie or a TV show, I really don't WANT to HAVE to analyse what I'm watching to derive its meaning. It's called "entertainment" and I'm watching it because-GASP-I want to be ENTERTAINED. If I want to think, I'll pick up a book.
Thing is, there are about as many different types of anime as there are people, so it's not hard to find something you like. Me, I really like the happy, fun stuff a lot more than the dark, depressing philosophical stuff. If you'd rather watch people brooding than people having fun, that's your problem, not mine. 8^)
So in other words, it's a worthy successor to the original?
Seriously though, the problem with these sci-fi "epic" type anime (Akira, GitS, Lain, Evangelion, whatever) is their convoluted story lines and (typically pathetic) attempts at being deeply philosophical. Usually one begets the other. However they arise, they always get in the way of my being able to just enjoy the show. I love the animation in Akira, but the story is SO BORING that I want to turn it off.
Well, if they use it for that, so what? Is there something wrong with the park wanting to make more money? Anyway, if they can see which parts of the park are most popular, they can figure out ways to make the rest of the park more appealing, which makes for a more enjoyable visit. Sounds like a win-win situation to me, but feel free to continue being indignant.
Perhaps it is better that kids are chaperoned by their parents rather than tracked by chips after all.
I suppose you never wandered off from your parents, or got lost somehow? I can't tell you how often I got lost or separated from my parents when we went out. It wasn't that they didn't care enough to keep track of me. It's that I was so darned good at getting away from them. If my Mom could have used an RFID chip to keep track of me at the zoo, she would have done so in a hot second. If I had kids, I'd want something like this myself. I know what it's like to be lost, separated from my parents and afraid. If I knew I could find them easily, I wouldn't have to be so afraid.
So let's see...the park can make more money (the whole reason they're in business to begin with, after all), and you can have a more enjoyable time, and you can keep track of your family. How is this a bad thing, exactly?
I shudder to think how they're going to fill 1500 channels.
The Survivor Channel. The Paris Hilton Sex Tape Channel. The Dixon-Ticonderoga #2 Pencil Channel. The Slashdot Channel.
Etc, etc...
Sorry, sorry, I know, it's the whole WinTel marketing machine, but if they really REALLY wanted an "ultra fast" port for moving all that data around, they'd've gone with FireWire 800. Even plain vanilla FireWire is faster than USB 2.0. Sure, USB's THEORETICAL maximum speed is faster than FireWire 400, but in practise it's a lot slower.
That said, it probably is fast enough. But ultra fast? HA!
Call me pedantic...
Call me a nitpicker...
But Saruman destroyed Isengard. The Ents cleansed it. Orthanc (the tower) was the only part untouched (at least externally).
I bet these guys are the same sort who love to hide behind the first amendment whenever they say stupid shit. They're probably also liberals who claim to be tolerant and who say that all viewpoints are valid.
So much for all that, huh? Bunch of fucking wankers.