I saw "Attack of the Clones" in digital. I watched carefully for anything that distinguished the digital projection from film--whether for better or worse. To my eyes, the image quality was indistinguishable from a good film print.
The difference I did note: no dust, no scratches.
I won't tell you what I thought of the movie itself.
Forbes' account of Darl McBride's history of contributions to the world of technology has given me some perspective, and a lot more insight. I finally understand where McBride's coming from.
The impression I got was that this was the first time that the One had been in love, hence the reason why he didnt take either of the choices presented to him, and he made his own path.....
Neo took exactly the path the architect intended him to take. Everything the architect said was designed to get him to act as he has acted, and imagine that he's exercising free will.
people who patent ideas for things they have no intentions of building, hoping to license technology or block competitors from doing something similar. As if the patent system weren't screwed up enough already.
It's frequently been remarked here that misuse of a law meant to encourage innovation can actually discourage it, instead.
As the great Daffy Duck used to say, "Consequences, shmonsequences! So long as I'm rich!"
There are some folks who will eat this up. I'm not one of them. Although I am innately superior to folks whose tastes are different than my own, I'm not judgmental. If George Lucas can give those folks a little happiness in exchange for $20, more power to him. Those who don't want to watch it don't have to.
Viewers are likely to discover just how exciting and glamorous the movie business really is. I think there must be some Law of Conservation of Monotony. To create a film that beguiles the time for two hours, times ten million viewers, the filmmakers must endure months of absolutely crushing tedium. The more interesting the movie, the more mind-numbing the making of it.
I was going to say, "Sounds like a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there." Then I realized that the frequent huge doses of ionizing radiation would probably wreak havoc on television reception and other things. So maybe it's not even a nice place to visit. And I'm just sure I couldn't live there for very long.
I've had some experience with costly 24-hour support contracts for commercial software. Some of that experience couldn't have been better--patches written while I'm on the phone and shipped right out.
Other vendors ship out a large annual support bill, but provide support so useless that we wouldn't waste our time calling them, but turned to customer mailing lists or searched newsgroups when we had a problem.
Excellent support seems to be increasingly rare. Terrible support seems increasingly commonplace. If some of your vendors provide worthless support, that might help illustrate the error of putting too much faith in those commercial support contracts.
A few years ago, pundits said anyone who didn't perceive the internet's magical power to mint money "just don't get the internet."
Shortly before the first dotcom boom went bust, I saw an enthusiastic stock analyst on one of the financial news shows. He defended his extravagant valuations of companies that had never made a profit and had never articulated when or how they intended to start making a profit. Profit and loss statements and P/E ratios were archaic and obsolete relics of the old economy, he said. "Now it's all about branding."
Who didn't get it?
It's likely that the bust left some tech stocks undervalued. There may be some bargains to be had. There are undoubtedly opportunities for real businesses that figure out that the interenet, like the telephone company, lets a company communicate with its customers. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that a company still needs to find some way to actually make money.
(Personally, I don't think we've let all the hot air out of the bubble yet. Time will tell.)
I read the article. Ellison doesn't say that software is a dead industry, but that its early growth spurt is over, never to return. I think he's right.
The software boom started with the microcomputer revolution, about 25 years ago. At that time, only governments and giant corporations had computers. When you start from virtually nothing, it's not difficult to have 100% growth year after year--for a while. Now there are computers on almost every corporate desktop, and in the majority of American homes.
There are still some growth markets out there--China, for example--but we aren't going to see the market double many more times. This was absolutely predictable, and no one should be surprised.
There's still an opportunity for individual companies to revolutionize our computer use with some truly innovative new applications. (If I had any examples to offer, I would be far too busy striking it rich to tell you about them.)
Will that shiney new degree be worthless?
If you got your degree solely so you could kick back and watch the money role in, then, yes, your degree is worthless.
I think the significance of this it that major distributors have signed on to a service that isn't locked in to Microsoft-proprietary file formats. If the Apple store is successful, more distributors will be signing on to this, or looking into other ways to get online.
Yes, Apple's music comes with DRM. I don't think major distributors will sign up without it. Apple's model is less restrictive than many of the current online music sellers. Consumers haven't seemed willing to pay for music that's severely locked down. Apple's venture will show distributors whether we're willing to pay for greater freedom with our tunes.
I really don't think we're going to get a DRM-free future. Sad but true. Unless Apple fully documents their DRM technology so that other companies can build devices that can play these modified AAC files, we may be trading Microsoft's proprietary lockdown for Apple's. I want open formats for everything--including DRM technology.
From the foreword: The only operating system that is so bad that people spend literally millions of dollars trying to improve it.
This reminds me of Alan Kay's famous observation that the Macintosh was "the first computer good enough to be criticized."
It also brings to mind Winston Churchill's remark: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the other forms which have been tried from time to time."
If you've seen the last two Star Wars movies, you'll know that George Lucas has moved beyond this gross material plane. There's no way he would tolerate mere human beings getting in the way of his luminous vision. Send in the CGI extras!
I seem to get some sort of security bulletin at least once a week. They're not all Windows vulnerabilities, either. I don't think we know how to do computer security well enough just yet to entrust our democracy to it. The voter identity systems and the tabulators must both be absolutely hack-proof.
How do we handle failures? Do I lose my right to vote if there's a cable cut somewhere between me and the Board of Elections? Do I lose my right to vote if my ISP has screwed up some routing table? Can a DoS attack deny my right to vote?
Because computers cost money, online voting makes it easier for those with enough money to have a computer to vote, and thus marginally disenfranchises those who don't.
Still, I'm all in favor of testing. Only when we've seen how this stuff works--and how it fails--will we start to understand what it's going to take to do this right. It's important to get it right.
I would prefer to call piles "stacks." It sounds neater.
You could put all kinds of content in them, including pictures, text, sounds, video, user-programmable buttons, etc. And you could link items to other items in the same stack--or even items in different stacks! And if you could attach some sort of script to any item in a stack, that would be hyper cool!
I know... I know... that idea's waaaay too far ahead of its time.
Slashdot Mirror
So, nyah. WOrld's smallest printer my ass! :) I've seen atomic printers, baby!
Wow! Good eyesight!!
I support this sort of data gathering. The less crappy, brainless advertising out there the better.
If you think this will result in less crappy, brainless advertising, you are an optimist!
Eating my words now.
Yum!!
So, all you people who insisted Apple had to make the move to Intel CPUs--aren't you ashamed of yourselves now?
I saw "Attack of the Clones" in digital. I watched carefully for anything that distinguished the digital projection from film--whether for better or worse. To my eyes, the image quality was indistinguishable from a good film print.
The difference I did note: no dust, no scratches.
I won't tell you what I thought of the movie itself.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I suspect someone hacked the site.
I will be absolutely delighted to eat my words if I'm proven wrong. But I'm not gonna set myself up for a fall by expecting machines with these specs.
Forbes' account of Darl McBride's history of contributions to the world of technology has given me some perspective, and a lot more insight. I finally understand where McBride's coming from.
Who'da thunk that the man was a stickup artist?
Now you can shave and watch the news. As if running a razor blade over your face was not dangerous enough. =-)
Ah, but think of the convenience when something on the news makes you want to slit your throat.
The impression I got was that this was the first time that the One had been in love, hence the reason why he didnt take either of the choices presented to him, and he made his own path.....
Neo took exactly the path the architect intended him to take. Everything the architect said was designed to get him to act as he has acted, and imagine that he's exercising free will.
OS X is now a real OS. It has Quark XPress...
Yes, every real OS has its share of problems.
people who patent ideas for things they have no intentions of building, hoping to license technology or block competitors from doing something similar. As if the patent system weren't screwed up enough already.
It's frequently been remarked here that misuse of a law meant to encourage innovation can actually discourage it, instead.
As the great Daffy Duck used to say, "Consequences, shmonsequences! So long as I'm rich!"
SCO has discovered an amendment to their contract
SCO's Methodology: Sue first, ask questions later.
There are some folks who will eat this up. I'm not one of them. Although I am innately superior to folks whose tastes are different than my own, I'm not judgmental. If George Lucas can give those folks a little happiness in exchange for $20, more power to him. Those who don't want to watch it don't have to.
Viewers are likely to discover just how exciting and glamorous the movie business really is. I think there must be some Law of Conservation of Monotony. To create a film that beguiles the time for two hours, times ten million viewers, the filmmakers must endure months of absolutely crushing tedium. The more interesting the movie, the more mind-numbing the making of it.
And for just $20, the fans get to watch! Cool.
Sounds pretty awesome.
I was going to say, "Sounds like a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there." Then I realized that the frequent huge doses of ionizing radiation would probably wreak havoc on television reception and other things. So maybe it's not even a nice place to visit. And I'm just sure I couldn't live there for very long.
The problem is a sequence of 1s and 0s. Avoid those two numbers, and you'll be fine.
I've had some experience with costly 24-hour support contracts for commercial software. Some of that experience couldn't have been better--patches written while I'm on the phone and shipped right out.
Other vendors ship out a large annual support bill, but provide support so useless that we wouldn't waste our time calling them, but turned to customer mailing lists or searched newsgroups when we had a problem.
Excellent support seems to be increasingly rare. Terrible support seems increasingly commonplace. If some of your vendors provide worthless support, that might help illustrate the error of putting too much faith in those commercial support contracts.
A few years ago, pundits said anyone who didn't perceive the internet's magical power to mint money "just don't get the internet."
Shortly before the first dotcom boom went bust, I saw an enthusiastic stock analyst on one of the financial news shows. He defended his extravagant valuations of companies that had never made a profit and had never articulated when or how they intended to start making a profit. Profit and loss statements and P/E ratios were archaic and obsolete relics of the old economy, he said. "Now it's all about branding."
Who didn't get it?
It's likely that the bust left some tech stocks undervalued. There may be some bargains to be had. There are undoubtedly opportunities for real businesses that figure out that the interenet, like the telephone company, lets a company communicate with its customers. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that a company still needs to find some way to actually make money.
(Personally, I don't think we've let all the hot air out of the bubble yet. Time will tell.)
Oh, good. There aren't enough lawsuits.
Telemarketers vs. Lawyers in an epic Battle to the Death!
I know a lot of people who would consider that a win-win situation.
I read the article. Ellison doesn't say that software is a dead industry, but that its early growth spurt is over, never to return. I think he's right.
The software boom started with the microcomputer revolution, about 25 years ago. At that time, only governments and giant corporations had computers. When you start from virtually nothing, it's not difficult to have 100% growth year after year--for a while. Now there are computers on almost every corporate desktop, and in the majority of American homes.
There are still some growth markets out there--China, for example--but we aren't going to see the market double many more times. This was absolutely predictable, and no one should be surprised.
There's still an opportunity for individual companies to revolutionize our computer use with some truly innovative new applications. (If I had any examples to offer, I would be far too busy striking it rich to tell you about them.)
Will that shiney new degree be worthless?
If you got your degree solely so you could kick back and watch the money role in, then, yes, your degree is worthless.
I think the significance of this it that major distributors have signed on to a service that isn't locked in to Microsoft-proprietary file formats. If the Apple store is successful, more distributors will be signing on to this, or looking into other ways to get online.
Yes, Apple's music comes with DRM. I don't think major distributors will sign up without it. Apple's model is less restrictive than many of the current online music sellers. Consumers haven't seemed willing to pay for music that's severely locked down. Apple's venture will show distributors whether we're willing to pay for greater freedom with our tunes.
I really don't think we're going to get a DRM-free future. Sad but true. Unless Apple fully documents their DRM technology so that other companies can build devices that can play these modified AAC files, we may be trading Microsoft's proprietary lockdown for Apple's. I want open formats for everything--including DRM technology.
the heads of the various P2P services are hoisting their glasses in triumph
I think I've seen this movie before. They're doomed.
Premature celebration is always the setup for the big take-down scene. Just you watch.
From the foreword: The only operating system that is so bad that people spend literally millions of dollars trying to improve it.
This reminds me of Alan Kay's famous observation that the Macintosh was "the first computer good enough to be criticized."
It also brings to mind Winston Churchill's remark: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the other forms which have been tried from time to time."
Surely this must be a hoax.
If you've seen the last two Star Wars movies, you'll know that George Lucas has moved beyond this gross material plane. There's no way he would tolerate mere human beings getting in the way of his luminous vision. Send in the CGI extras!
I seem to get some sort of security bulletin at least once a week. They're not all Windows vulnerabilities, either. I don't think we know how to do computer security well enough just yet to entrust our democracy to it. The voter identity systems and the tabulators must both be absolutely hack-proof.
How do we handle failures? Do I lose my right to vote if there's a cable cut somewhere between me and the Board of Elections? Do I lose my right to vote if my ISP has screwed up some routing table? Can a DoS attack deny my right to vote?
Because computers cost money, online voting makes it easier for those with enough money to have a computer to vote, and thus marginally disenfranchises those who don't.
Still, I'm all in favor of testing. Only when we've seen how this stuff works--and how it fails--will we start to understand what it's going to take to do this right. It's important to get it right.
I would prefer to call piles "stacks." It sounds neater.
You could put all kinds of content in them, including pictures, text, sounds, video, user-programmable buttons, etc. And you could link items to other items in the same stack--or even items in different stacks! And if you could attach some sort of script to any item in a stack, that would be hyper cool!
I know... I know... that idea's waaaay too far ahead of its time.