i thought self-destructing discs were supposed to be cheaper than normal rentals because you wouldn't need the return/inventory system. were they more expensive to make, or were they just out of their minds?
Tempting though... i'll be standing well back and getting ready to run... perhaps that's one to try with people who are *absolutely* new, not mine, who know they want to explore the internet with the Internet Explorer.
it's not the memory usage so much, as the CPU. that seems to be a serious & real problem they have and i can't tolerate (opening two pages that opera doesnt like for no apparent reason could get 95% usage). i'm pretty sure it's not my setup, this is over many opera versions and clean OS reinstalls and default settings and tweaked settings...
interesting reply about the design differences though, i'd never heard that before, thanks.
yep. i think it's because MS stuff is the most basic and hasn't changed for about 5 years (since they started using the internet). Like I tried to get people to use Opera.. and that thing pops up at the start (asking whether you want to start with your last session, home page, blank window etc.) and they don't even read it, they just think it's some sort of error.
Where we go "cool, nice features" they... don't.
The other thing is, they always, with unwavering precision and frightening speed, manage to find the pages that it doesn't render properly.
gah, normal people.
the other thing is, that MS have succeeding frighteningly well in making their applications and icons synonymous with the tasks they perform in the minds of so many people. it's been said before, but that blue 'e' sort of IS the internet to so many people, like that 'w' IS the word processor. gah again. sorry for the lack of capital letters in this post.
This browser is insecure and will allow criminals to steal your money.
i made a similar post to the parent, in a different place in this discussion, which got modded up. so this one should disappear. sorry for saying almost the same thing twice:/ (/me slaps self)
Opera was my browser of choice for over a year, but recently i moved to Firebird.. why? I got fed up with Opera being so slow. It seems to have problems with certain sites (many that i come across), relating apparently to its javascript engine (a suggestion on their forum to turn off js is too inconvenient for me). If this affects you (I was finding Opera regularly using >50% CPU and >100MB RAM on my AMD 1.2Ghz, 512MB system), you may want to consider Firebird instead (with all the necessary extensions to give a similar experience). I have found no such resource usage in Firebird yet.
This is in no way bashing Opera, which has a lot of great innovations and I hope to return to when this problem is fixed. Just a warning that Opera may not be as fast as everyone thinks!
I (have a) question (about) Opera. I used to use it all the time, but now switched to Firebird (with tabbrowser and mouse gesture extensions etc., gives roughly same experience) because i found Opera so darn slow. A request for help on Opera forum showed a possible bug in their javascript engine, but noone seemed very interested in fixing it. It was typically using >50% cpu time on some sites and >100MB ram on my system (AMD 1.2Ghz, 512MB RAM). Now i do always have a lot of pages open, but still. I know Opera is meant to be fast.. so i guess this is a: why can opera be so resource heavy/don't assume it will be light! type post. oh well, just to be different:) i still agree with the gist of what you say and like both browsers, it's just a shame that they all have their quirks and I seem to need 3 or 4 browsers installed, each with their own bookmarks, settings etc. gah!
If there's one thing worse than a field full mines, it's a minefield that everyone thinks is clear...
Story is light on detail.
How close does a flower have to be to the mine?
Do mines reliably release what the plant looks for?
How hard is it to keep the flowers alive? Does their performance depend on them growing a certain amount?
A few questions that come to mind straight away. Presumably the company is thinking about these things but it's early to say yet. Also, this is for use on farmland, which makes more sense.
yes, i see strange definitions of "instantaneous" getting used in situations like this.. i understand the need to comfort relatives, but let's be honest.. "instantaneous" to most people must mean a small fraction of a second.. and remember subjectively, time appears to slown down at moments like these.
finally, dictionary.com:
4 entries found for instantaneous.
instantaneous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nstn-tn-s)
adj.
1. Occurring or completed without perceptible delay: Relief was instantaneous.
2. Done or made as quickly or directly as possible: an instantaneous reply to my letter.
3. Present or occurring at a specific instant: instantaneous velocity; instantaneous pressure.
'nuff said. It was longer than that. I feel very sad for those astronauts.
OK, I speak for every red-blooded male when i say she's f***ing amazing. Everyone seen Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation? No? Go see them:) Seriously though, she was by far my actress of the year... this one will go far.
{half serious}
don't worry, failing totally at the Oscars is a sure sign that it will be a classic in ten years time:D
{/half serious}
OK, Big Fish could have been up for Cinematrograpy, Art Direction, Direction, Adapted Screenplay just off the top of my head, having seen it last weekend, IMHO.
Agree with you about LiT, but have you seen Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)? Many people (such as myself:) would say that was his finest performance to date! Of course, we're only talking about performances this year, and then he certaily has a chance:)
Trivia: did you know Sofia Coppola would not have made Lost in Translation without Bill Murray? Take that as a tribute to Murray, or a sign of weakness in the script. I can't believe it won best screenplay at the Golden Globes:/ I think the judges have difficulty seeing the difference between a great idea and a great final draft. I see LiT is also up for WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY) (why all the block capitals guys?) Oscar. Please God no lol. But we all know the Oscars are not to be taken as the final word on artistic merit.
ok i'll risk some karma here: parent has a point, though it could have been worded more delicately. I don't think the movie is racist (and the parent probably doesn't either; i think he's saying it's not funny) but is overrated. anyway, this is off topic so i'm not going to review LiT here. mods, if you disagree with someone's valid opinion, at least mod it funny or leave it alone, please.. my beef is with the grandparent who says "hey btw this other movie i saw is amazing!", with no more justification, is OT and promptly gets modded +5 insightful.
That's your opinion (obviously), I thought Sean Astin was good as Sam, and Viggo Mortensen made a good Aragorn. Miranda Otto was capable too. And Andy Serkis, jesus! Sir (;)) Ian McKellen, as you say. The ones I really disliked were Liv Tyler, John Rhys-Davies and that stupid looking man-elf, can't remember his name. Could have done without Agent Smith in there too. Really the acting wasn't bad considering what they were asked to do, this was a fun movie to act but not an actor's win awards movie, if you know what I mean. They struck an OK balance between epic and cheesiness IMHO. Most of the time. Orlando Bloom was pushing it. Shame Sean Bean had to die in the first episode eh. Most of the older men were great:)
It was a huge cast, don't write them all off like that eh.
I think this is a reference to the movie Total Recall. Which is based on a Philip K. Dick short story, BTW:) (that's a little slashdot interest for yous;).
We don't [think it's OK to steal music and movies]. We think it's ok to copy them not for profit and then, if it's good, buy a ticket or dvd & recommend others do the same.
Things you shouldn't do (again i'm speaking under some geek "we" umbrella):
Sell copies
Steal media
Have to pay for entertainment without knowing if it's going to be entertaining, when you don't have the chance of a refund - ? Otherwise the studios could, you know, produce bad movies and still make money from them...
oh, wait...
I'm very much of the belief that good movies are worth watching more than once, BTW.
Ogg lets you avoid artefacts at a lower bitrate than MP3. To say "In MP3, you get audio artifacts [sic?] (usually higher frequencies)" is misleading because, if encoded properly (like LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard) you won't get audible (which is what lossy codecs are all about: hiding audible errors) artefacts in a very high number (like >99.5%) of users&songs. Granted, Ogg is a better codec pretty much but please careful with the over-simplification in explanations:)
Sorry to go around Slashdot being some kind of mp3-champion but i think it gets an unfair bashing around here sometimes. The LAME team (which I'm not part of) has put an enormous amount of effort into getting transparency at around 200kbps and to say otherwise is doing them a disservice I feel. It is true however that the design of MP3 as a spec has some limitations which are not completely solved even by using very high bitrates, for example, however your post exaggerates the severity of these in real situations. OK I'm done:)
you make an excellent point, ive also thought this. i have an idea what they're thinking though. cost. i bet that caddy would cost more to make than the dvd. suppose the disc cost 2p to make (i don't know, i'm making these numbers up) and the caddy, with its many sides and some mechanical opening part, cost 10p, the bean counters multiply that out and find they will "lose" millions by having it, & that most consumers don't think ahead enough to care, hence costs not recuperated. this is total speculation but i'd bet somewhere close to reality... now if only you could add caddies yourself (i.e. after you bought the disc, and still stick it in the player), we could both be happy?
it's exactly 24fps. 23.976 is what you get after inverse telecining from NTSC material (because NTSC is slightly less than 60 fields per second, for reasons i can't remember right now).
early sony dvd players were so bad that i read a class action lawsuit was brought against them. i have one of those players. it now has to be recalibrated for many discs (keep going into service menu). sometimes youll get half way through a movie when it konks out - that's how to have an evening ruined. My other player, a philips costing 1/4 as much works every time. Sony's treatment of customers was appaling. the players overheated badly, basic flaws like that. they may have improved their players now, but i wont buy sony again on principle. this is not one man's bitching, i promise. i found pages and pages of pissed of people on the 'net when i went searching for help a year ago...
Slashdot Mirror
i thought self-destructing discs were supposed to be cheaper than normal rentals because you wouldn't need the return/inventory system. were they more expensive to make, or were they just out of their minds?
Tempting though... i'll be standing well back and getting ready to run... perhaps that's one to try with people who are *absolutely* new, not mine, who know they want to explore the internet with the Internet Explorer.
it's not the memory usage so much, as the CPU. that seems to be a serious & real problem they have and i can't tolerate (opening two pages that opera doesnt like for no apparent reason could get 95% usage). i'm pretty sure it's not my setup, this is over many opera versions and clean OS reinstalls and default settings and tweaked settings... interesting reply about the design differences though, i'd never heard that before, thanks.
Where we go "cool, nice features" they... don't.
The other thing is, they always, with unwavering precision and frightening speed, manage to find the pages that it doesn't render properly.
gah, normal people.
the other thing is, that MS have succeeding frighteningly well in making their applications and icons synonymous with the tasks they perform in the minds of so many people. it's been said before, but that blue 'e' sort of IS the internet to so many people, like that 'w' IS the word processor. gah again. sorry for the lack of capital letters in this post.
loli made a similar post to the parent, in a different place in this discussion, which got modded up. so this one should disappear. sorry for saying almost the same thing twice :/ (/me slaps self)
This is in no way bashing Opera, which has a lot of great innovations and I hope to return to when this problem is fixed. Just a warning that Opera may not be as fast as everyone thinks!
I (have a) question (about) Opera. I used to use it all the time, but now switched to Firebird (with tabbrowser and mouse gesture extensions etc., gives roughly same experience) because i found Opera so darn slow. A request for help on Opera forum showed a possible bug in their javascript engine, but noone seemed very interested in fixing it. It was typically using >50% cpu time on some sites and >100MB ram on my system (AMD 1.2Ghz, 512MB RAM). Now i do always have a lot of pages open, but still. I know Opera is meant to be fast.. so i guess this is a: why can opera be so resource heavy/don't assume it will be light! type post. oh well, just to be different :) i still agree with the gist of what you say and like both browsers, it's just a shame that they all have their quirks and I seem to need 3 or 4 browsers installed, each with their own bookmarks, settings etc. gah!
Story is light on detail.
- How close does a flower have to be to the mine?
- Do mines reliably release what the plant looks for?
- How hard is it to keep the flowers alive? Does their performance depend on them growing a certain amount?
A few questions that come to mind straight away. Presumably the company is thinking about these things but it's early to say yet. Also, this is for use on farmland, which makes more sense.finally, dictionary.com:
'nuff said. It was longer than that. I feel very sad for those astronauts.
nt=no text
I agree ROTK is a better movie, i was just saying Fish should have been nominated in some of the categories i mentioned.
OK, I speak for every red-blooded male when i say she's f***ing amazing. Everyone seen Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation? No? Go see them :) Seriously though, she was by far my actress of the year... this one will go far.
OK, Big Fish could have been up for Cinematrograpy, Art Direction, Direction, Adapted Screenplay just off the top of my head, having seen it last weekend, IMHO.
Trivia: did you know Sofia Coppola would not have made Lost in Translation without Bill Murray? Take that as a tribute to Murray, or a sign of weakness in the script. I can't believe it won best screenplay at the Golden Globes :/ I think the judges have difficulty seeing the difference between a great idea and a great final draft. I see LiT is also up for WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY) (why all the block capitals guys?) Oscar. Please God no lol. But we all know the Oscars are not to be taken as the final word on artistic merit.
i could be wrong though.
ok i'll risk some karma here: parent has a point, though it could have been worded more delicately. I don't think the movie is racist (and the parent probably doesn't either; i think he's saying it's not funny) but is overrated. anyway, this is off topic so i'm not going to review LiT here. mods, if you disagree with someone's valid opinion, at least mod it funny or leave it alone, please.. my beef is with the grandparent who says "hey btw this other movie i saw is amazing!", with no more justification, is OT and promptly gets modded +5 insightful.
It was a huge cast, don't write them all off like that eh.
I think this is a reference to the movie Total Recall. Which is based on a Philip K. Dick short story, BTW :) (that's a little slashdot interest for yous ;).
Things you shouldn't do (again i'm speaking under some geek "we" umbrella):
oh, wait...
I'm very much of the belief that good movies are worth watching more than once, BTW.
Sorry to go around Slashdot being some kind of mp3-champion but i think it gets an unfair bashing around here sometimes. The LAME team (which I'm not part of) has put an enormous amount of effort into getting transparency at around 200kbps and to say otherwise is doing them a disservice I feel. It is true however that the design of MP3 as a spec has some limitations which are not completely solved even by using very high bitrates, for example, however your post exaggerates the severity of these in real situations. OK I'm done :)
OT: How do you spell art[e/i]facts anyway? :)
you make an excellent point, ive also thought this. i have an idea what they're thinking though. cost. i bet that caddy would cost more to make than the dvd. suppose the disc cost 2p to make (i don't know, i'm making these numbers up) and the caddy, with its many sides and some mechanical opening part, cost 10p, the bean counters multiply that out and find they will "lose" millions by having it, & that most consumers don't think ahead enough to care, hence costs not recuperated. this is total speculation but i'd bet somewhere close to reality... now if only you could add caddies yourself (i.e. after you bought the disc, and still stick it in the player), we could both be happy?
it's exactly 24fps. 23.976 is what you get after inverse telecining from NTSC material (because NTSC is slightly less than 60 fields per second, for reasons i can't remember right now).
early sony dvd players were so bad that i read a class action lawsuit was brought against them. i have one of those players. it now has to be recalibrated for many discs (keep going into service menu). sometimes youll get half way through a movie when it konks out - that's how to have an evening ruined. My other player, a philips costing 1/4 as much works every time. Sony's treatment of customers was appaling. the players overheated badly, basic flaws like that. they may have improved their players now, but i wont buy sony again on principle. this is not one man's bitching, i promise. i found pages and pages of pissed of people on the 'net when i went searching for help a year ago...