For a bunch of nerds you all have the worse imaginations I've ever seen.
Yes, but keep in mind that we are talking about Microsoft, a company whose products can be considered imaginative only if you take into account the creativity of the people and companies they (ahem) borrowed their ideas from.
To quote Tom Baker speaking to Sarah when she questioned him about it, he said, "It's a Time Lord gift that I allow you to share." At the time, I took that to mean that it was a mental capability of Gallifreyans that he used to allow Sarah to communicate with aliens.
If voice activation is inefficient, why do so many people have secretaries? Granted, boob size may very well reduce the efficiency at which the information is transmitted to the responding device, i.e., the male executive either forgetting what he had to say, or having to repeat himself. That doesn't negate the validity of voice activation though.
That's nothing. How about Doctor Who, where every race in the Universe, whether human-descended or outright alien, not only speaks perfect English but does so with a British accent? I mean, I know that the British Empire had extensive holdings at its peak, but really.
I think the problem might be on your end. I've had no trouble watching anything on YouTube, and I watched the rather lengthy B-52 bomber videos that someone just posted in this thread and they played perfectly.
perhaps framing your information for the comment that was actually made instead of the comment you wanted to hear might be a good idea.
Don't bother. It's very hard to penetrate the zone of magical protection around some people's cognitive areas. I think it's because those people are actually reprogrammed Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 terminators, with their CPU write-protect switches unfortunately still set to ON.
Perhaps it is arrogant and ignorant of me to believe, that we can change it back.
Probably it is. Humans have both an ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and a capacity for modifying said environment shared by no other creature on Earth. But I have the feeling that after the past century or so of changing things we'd best get set for a round of adaptation. We're going to have to be pretty damn flexible to survive the next century, whether or not anything is done about global warming now, whether or not global warming is even a problem.
In any event, "the environment" and "global warming" have become such bastions of international politics, power-mongering and economic chicanery that I don't trust anything I hear on either subject if it comes out of the mainstream media or from anywhere near the White House. Or any foreign power's government either, for that matter. There's nothing I can do, personally, about global warming and even if I could, odds are that anything it is suggested I do will be for someone else's benefit rather than any serious attempt at redress. Nothing substantive can or will ever be done about global warming because it has become a tool of influence, to be used to control or decimate national economies. The powerful no longer care about the future, they only care about the now. The rest of us are going to have to follow them over any cliff they lead us to, whether we want to or not.
People on all sides of the issue claim to have "all the facts" and that "the bulk of scientific evidence supports our conclusions". Since I don't have the requisite scientific background to examine the raw data and judge this for myself, I choose to presume that everyone is either mistaken or outright lying to me. There are multiple points of view (there is global warming, there isn't global warming, there is global warming but it's not serious, there is global warming but it's not serious yet, there is global warming and we're all going to die tomorrow, etc. etc. etc. ad-bloody-nauseam.) and they can't all be true.
Sometimes you have no choice but to believe that those in power know what they're doing even when you know, in your heart, that they don't give a damn. Consequently I'm not going to worry about it. I have plenty of problems as it is.
Even if every nuke on the planet went off bacteria would still survive... given another hundred millions years or so an entirely new and different ecology would evolve. Granted, we wouldn't be a part of it.
Actually, if anything survived such a radioactive holocaust it would probably be cockroaches. I shudder to think what they might evolve into.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. If you can re-use the airplane, it's a great one. Apparently he's made a number of great landings.
Seriously, I think the guy's nuts, but damn that was cool to watch. I know the U.S. military experimented with flying platforms at one time: does anyone know if they ever worked on anything like this? He says he's working on the ability to have ground takeoffs in the next version. That's actually starting to sound like it might become a useful application of personal flight, hair-raising as it looks.
Well, I think that when it comes down to watching Hollywood sci-fi (or what passes for science-fiction these days at any rate), ignorance really is bliss. As a software engineer myself, I've been subjected to absolutely ridiculous depictions of computer technology for decades. Regardless of whether such blunders advance the narrative flow, as a Hollywood apologist who posted in this thread commented, they still irritate the bejesus out of me. Mostly because it really wouldn't be that hard to get it right! My feeling is that the reason they don't bother is because Hollywood's scriptwriters really do not think very much of the people that watch their products, and figure they're too stupid to know the difference. Of course, I'm assuming that the writers themselves have a clue. Probably they don't either.
Hell, I'd offer to perform technical reviews of such scripts for free, if it would keep me and people like me from having to suffer through yet another stupid bit of computer jargon, or another cartoonish display that evinces a hearty "WTF?" from even non-computer people. To this day, I still see Applesoft BASIC scrolling by now and then! Probably somebody videotaped it back in 1979 and they've been using it ever since. Gagh.
It was okay for Robocop to see "COMMAND.COM, LOAD BIOS" when he rebooted himself (hilarous, actually... I have to wonder if the producers really knew how funny that was) but today we should be seeing a little more attention to detail.
The studios spend millions on their special effects, doing their damndest to create a sense of wonder and the appearance of realism, to keep their audiences immersed in the cinematic flow. So, would it be so hard to hire a computer scientist or a software engineer to review their scripts so that people like me don't have to struggle quite so hard with that whole "willing suspension of disbelief" thing? Audience members that don't have a clue won't notice either way, and those that do will nod and smile and say, "Way cool!" Heck, what with all the outsourcing and "free trade" stuff going on nowadays I understand that you can pick up a highly-educated computer-literate technojock for real cheap... probably work for food.
Perhaps, but it's easier to notice something that is, than something that is not. I don't think I've ever noticed or remarked upon a character not using the john: it's just assumed that even movie characters have to take a crap now and than that in the interests of good taste they do it when we aren't watching. But my point is that there's a lot of inattention to detail that occurs in Hollywood movies, inattention that is completely unnecessary when a teeny bit of research would have fixed the problem -and- made the moviegoing experience better for all concerned. Narrative progress is often less an issue than simple ignorance/laziness/cheapness. There are films that bend every effort to get it right: take The Hunt for Red October, for example. They spent a considerable amount of time and money attempting to make the submarine's targeting and towed-array displays as realistic as possible. So realistic, in fact, that the U.S. Navy told them to change them because they had managed to come uncomfortably close to the real thing.
Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing. I've seen that sort of thing happen and worse, believe me. It's just that I sometimes have a hard time understanding how brutal we can be to each other nowadays.
On the other hand, most of the people watching those experts in TV and film aren't experts and haven't the slightest idea how a real expert would behave. The idea in a movie is to make the action appear realistic to the majority of the audience. Whether it is actually realistic is secondary. Yes, that will alienate some small percentage of the said audience who have the experience to perceive the error, but from a cinematic perspective that's a small price to pay. Hey, this is Slashdot and most of us are computer-literate far beyond the norm, but you can bet your boots that there are many people from other disciplines that just want to rip their eyes out when they watch scenes that would just make us think, "Whoa... cool."
By way of example, in the original pilot of Star Trek (original series) the test audience felt the opening sequence felt unnatural, because when the Enterprise was zooming into view there was no sound. That was as it should have been, this being a starship traveling through vacuum parsecs from anything resembling an atmosphere. However, as soon as Roddenbery's people added the swoosh! sound effect, everybody was happy. I've seen both sequences and I must admit I prefer it with the sound, even though I know better.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they some kind of expensive Internet speaker system?
But the consensus among Japanese is that visions of a future in which immigrant workers live harmoniously and unobtrusively in Japan are pure fancy.
Hm.
Or jump into the toilet and get into our sewer system? Then what?
You go get a plunger, that's what.
No, not a total asshole ... after all, he didn't actually break the unit.
You mean become sentient and attempt to eradicate humanity?
Yes, although I doubt the computer scientists involved see it in just that way.
For a bunch of nerds you all have the worse imaginations I've ever seen.
Yes, but keep in mind that we are talking about Microsoft, a company whose products can be considered imaginative only if you take into account the creativity of the people and companies they (ahem) borrowed their ideas from.
To quote Tom Baker speaking to Sarah when she questioned him about it, he said, "It's a Time Lord gift that I allow you to share." At the time, I took that to mean that it was a mental capability of Gallifreyans that he used to allow Sarah to communicate with aliens.
Most are probably based upon Ajax, I would think.
If voice activation is inefficient, why do so many people have secretaries? Granted, boob size may very well reduce the efficiency at which the information is transmitted to the responding device, i.e., the male executive either forgetting what he had to say, or having to repeat himself. That doesn't negate the validity of voice activation though.
Ah yes ... the well-known "reverse algorithmic".
That's nothing. How about Doctor Who, where every race in the Universe, whether human-descended or outright alien, not only speaks perfect English but does so with a British accent? I mean, I know that the British Empire had extensive holdings at its peak, but really.
but c'mon, you can walk into any bar in Oceanside with $100 in your hand and find a Marine who could help you with that.
... they'd be happy to help just to make sure their service was properly portrayed on film.
The military folks I know wouldn't even need that $100
Ice skates.
I think the problem might be on your end. I've had no trouble watching anything on YouTube, and I watched the rather lengthy B-52 bomber videos that someone just posted in this thread and they played perfectly.
... a New Scientist story about scientists who are developing a light-based processor by actually storing and delaying photons.
I'd be more impressed if they'd developed an optical processor that actually stored and speeded up photons.
perhaps framing your information for the comment that was actually made instead of the comment you wanted to hear might be a good idea.
Don't bother. It's very hard to penetrate the zone of magical protection around some people's cognitive areas. I think it's because those people are actually reprogrammed Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 terminators, with their CPU write-protect switches unfortunately still set to ON.
Perhaps it is arrogant and ignorant of me to believe, that we can change it back.
Probably it is. Humans have both an ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and a capacity for modifying said environment shared by no other creature on Earth. But I have the feeling that after the past century or so of changing things we'd best get set for a round of adaptation. We're going to have to be pretty damn flexible to survive the next century, whether or not anything is done about global warming now, whether or not global warming is even a problem.
In any event, "the environment" and "global warming" have become such bastions of international politics, power-mongering and economic chicanery that I don't trust anything I hear on either subject if it comes out of the mainstream media or from anywhere near the White House. Or any foreign power's government either, for that matter. There's nothing I can do, personally, about global warming and even if I could, odds are that anything it is suggested I do will be for someone else's benefit rather than any serious attempt at redress. Nothing substantive can or will ever be done about global warming because it has become a tool of influence, to be used to control or decimate national economies. The powerful no longer care about the future, they only care about the now. The rest of us are going to have to follow them over any cliff they lead us to, whether we want to or not.
People on all sides of the issue claim to have "all the facts" and that "the bulk of scientific evidence supports our conclusions". Since I don't have the requisite scientific background to examine the raw data and judge this for myself, I choose to presume that everyone is either mistaken or outright lying to me. There are multiple points of view (there is global warming, there isn't global warming, there is global warming but it's not serious, there is global warming but it's not serious yet, there is global warming and we're all going to die tomorrow, etc. etc. etc. ad-bloody-nauseam.) and they can't all be true.
Sometimes you have no choice but to believe that those in power know what they're doing even when you know, in your heart, that they don't give a damn. Consequently I'm not going to worry about it. I have plenty of problems as it is.
Even if every nuke on the planet went off bacteria would still survive ... given another hundred millions years or so an entirely new and different ecology would evolve. Granted, we wouldn't be a part of it.
Actually, if anything survived such a radioactive holocaust it would probably be cockroaches. I shudder to think what they might evolve into.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. If you can re-use the airplane, it's a great one. Apparently he's made a number of great landings.
Seriously, I think the guy's nuts, but damn that was cool to watch. I know the U.S. military experimented with flying platforms at one time: does anyone know if they ever worked on anything like this? He says he's working on the ability to have ground takeoffs in the next version. That's actually starting to sound like it might become a useful application of personal flight, hair-raising as it looks.
Well, I think that when it comes down to watching Hollywood sci-fi (or what passes for science-fiction these days at any rate), ignorance really is bliss. As a software engineer myself, I've been subjected to absolutely ridiculous depictions of computer technology for decades. Regardless of whether such blunders advance the narrative flow, as a Hollywood apologist who posted in this thread commented, they still irritate the bejesus out of me. Mostly because it really wouldn't be that hard to get it right! My feeling is that the reason they don't bother is because Hollywood's scriptwriters really do not think very much of the people that watch their products, and figure they're too stupid to know the difference. Of course, I'm assuming that the writers themselves have a clue. Probably they don't either.
... I have to wonder if the producers really knew how funny that was) but today we should be seeing a little more attention to detail.
... probably work for food.
Hell, I'd offer to perform technical reviews of such scripts for free, if it would keep me and people like me from having to suffer through yet another stupid bit of computer jargon, or another cartoonish display that evinces a hearty "WTF?" from even non-computer people. To this day, I still see Applesoft BASIC scrolling by now and then! Probably somebody videotaped it back in 1979 and they've been using it ever since. Gagh.
It was okay for Robocop to see "COMMAND.COM, LOAD BIOS" when he rebooted himself (hilarous, actually
The studios spend millions on their special effects, doing their damndest to create a sense of wonder and the appearance of realism, to keep their audiences immersed in the cinematic flow. So, would it be so hard to hire a computer scientist or a software engineer to review their scripts so that people like me don't have to struggle quite so hard with that whole "willing suspension of disbelief" thing? Audience members that don't have a clue won't notice either way, and those that do will nod and smile and say, "Way cool!" Heck, what with all the outsourcing and "free trade" stuff going on nowadays I understand that you can pick up a highly-educated computer-literate technojock for real cheap
No argument there ... I bought the boxed DVD set when it came out (pre-ordered on Amazon, actually) which is something I've never done before or since.
Perhaps, but it's easier to notice something that is, than something that is not. I don't think I've ever noticed or remarked upon a character not using the john: it's just assumed that even movie characters have to take a crap now and than that in the interests of good taste they do it when we aren't watching. But my point is that there's a lot of inattention to detail that occurs in Hollywood movies, inattention that is completely unnecessary when a teeny bit of research would have fixed the problem -and- made the moviegoing experience better for all concerned. Narrative progress is often less an issue than simple ignorance/laziness/cheapness. There are films that bend every effort to get it right: take The Hunt for Red October, for example. They spent a considerable amount of time and money attempting to make the submarine's targeting and towed-array displays as realistic as possible. So realistic, in fact, that the U.S. Navy told them to change them because they had managed to come uncomfortably close to the real thing.
The idea in a movie is to make the action appear realistic^W^W entertaining to the majority of the audience.
...".
Okay, perhaps I should have said, "... give the appearance of realism to the majority
I fixed that for your^W.
There, I fixed that for you.
Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing. I've seen that sort of thing happen and worse, believe me. It's just that I sometimes have a hard time understanding how brutal we can be to each other nowadays.
On the other hand, most of the people watching those experts in TV and film aren't experts and haven't the slightest idea how a real expert would behave. The idea in a movie is to make the action appear realistic to the majority of the audience. Whether it is actually realistic is secondary. Yes, that will alienate some small percentage of the said audience who have the experience to perceive the error, but from a cinematic perspective that's a small price to pay. Hey, this is Slashdot and most of us are computer-literate far beyond the norm, but you can bet your boots that there are many people from other disciplines that just want to rip their eyes out when they watch scenes that would just make us think, "Whoa ... cool."
By way of example, in the original pilot of Star Trek (original series) the test audience felt the opening sequence felt unnatural, because when the Enterprise was zooming into view there was no sound. That was as it should have been, this being a starship traveling through vacuum parsecs from anything resembling an atmosphere. However, as soon as Roddenbery's people added the swoosh! sound effect, everybody was happy. I've seen both sequences and I must admit I prefer it with the sound, even though I know better.