What about the projector bulb exploding? That's just what the theater told us (not the drafthouse btw, this is totally unrelated for curiosities' sake), but it certainly sounded accurate. In the theater we heard a loud bang, saw a blinding flash of light, and then there was nothing. Could that have been one of the silver nitrate ones?
Yeah, why would they have a copy of the new Star Trek film on hand the day before the official release of the new Star Trek film? It truly makes no sense.
But yes, I believe it was just theatrics. The detail that from the first-hand impressions I'm reading it sounds like the theatrics weren't exactly smooth actually lends authenticity.:)
Why would they have had the entire film print there, just in case? It doesn't make sense...
Because the movie was about to be released for-reals, so they'd need to be given a print?
But you're right, I'm thinking it was planned, except that doesn't explain the film melting which the blog says the owner was surprised and upset over, or having the writers for Khan there who started an impromptu Q&A session between when the film melted and Nimoy showed up. So either this was all theatrics (certainly possible at the Alamo) with some rough execution (also possible;), or the only intended surprise was Nimoy's visit but the owner managed to work something out.
Sorry, but it's not like ignoring Nemesis would result in the Trek franchise being unsullied, so I don't see it the same as the fact that there is only one Matrix movie. There were already bad Treks, including even numbered ones, and that's just part of the series charm... I guess.
No what really happened is that Nemesis was a real movie, and a real shitty movie. Nemesis was not just an even numbered Trek that sucked, it was an even numbered Trek that sucked so hard that it dragged everything around it into itself until its huge mass of suck collapsed and formed a singularity, making a wormhole into another dimension where the old odd-even rule simply doesn't apply any more.
Nemesis broke the pattern, literally. It's busted. We're in a new world where anything can happen, including good odd-numbered Treks. Also, I think Neptune is slightly more purple in this universe.
Those guys in Austin should demand a refund! They paid for a ticket for The Wrath of Khan, but that's not what they got. If it were me I'd be raising hell.
The story I heard via word of mouth was that they were actually going to play Wrath of Khan, with ten minutes of sneak-preview footage from the movie that hadn't been seen before as a bonus. However shortly after Wrath started playing, the old and damaged film caught fire and was destroyed. Then Nimoy revealed himself, and instead of showing the 10 minute teaser, they showed the whole film.
I can't imagine (though I guess it's possible) even Spock himself would dare show the full movie without authorization. So that may have been planned. The destruction of a print of Wrath... probably wasn't.
The last time I had a film burn up (actually it was the projector bulb that exploded, side effect was the print was destroyed) all I got was a lousy refund. Getting to watch a world premiere of a movie I'd probably be interested in, rather than having my night out ruined, is way way better than a refund.
I seriously fucking wish I had been there and I may have been but I didn't even know they were running Wrath. Why do I not check the Drafthouse web page more often?!
But the guilty person and the one who were framed were the same, and you suggested you thought OJ was guilty, which is why it doesn't make any sense. But really, whoosh, right? I sure missed that one; i should have been like ROFLMAO.
Yeah you ain't kidding. Though the wiimote honestly gives the mouse a run for its money. Mouse is superior as a turning device, letting you easily scale between small turns and 180 (or more) spins with precision. But for aiming, the wiimote is on par at least. Also an analog stick is better than WASD/ESDF, though this is less important.
Either way, the only advantage of the Dual Shock over other controllers is that it makes my thumbs ache equally.:P
Unless you need the specific brands, you should not be asking for Tylenol when you just want acetaminophen/paracetamol, nor Advil/Nurofen when you just want ibuprofen. Active ingredients and doses differ between brands, so it's important to know what you're taking.
Not really. At least not in the U.S. For the basic items (i.e. Tylenol instead of Tylenol PM), the active ingredients and dosages are exactly the same amongst the name brands and all generics. The active ingredient is the singular pain killer (acetaminophen, ibuprofen), and the dosage is the maximum allowed without a prescription as defined by the FDA for the respective medication. The only difference between "Tylenol" and "HEB brand acetaminophen pain killer" is the formulas for the pills' filler. Which I understand does have some impact on the way in which the active ingredient is delivered, but really isn't anything I'm going to worry about. The important bit -- active ingredient and dose -- is precisely, 100% the same. Same with Advil vs Motrin vs ibuprofen generics. Same with Bayer vs asprin generics.
I'm an addict, quite well known among my friends for my grumpiness and mental slowness prior to my first cup of coffee. I drink at least 6 cups a day, closer to 12 most days.
However I pretty much only drink coffee at work. On weekends I don't drink any, and when I go on vacation I generally don't drink any. That sometimes means that I'm going a week or more without coffee, clearly long enough to experience withdrawal symptoms.
Oh and I certainly experience them. Hell, I probably experience them even after a day without. Headaches, sluggishness, upset stomach, you name it. However, even as I'm experiencing these symptoms, it never really occurs to me to drink some coffee to make them go away. The urge to get "my fix" doesn't come over me, so if I've decided I'm not drinking coffee that day, I don't drink coffee and it takes basically zero will power for me to avoid it, even as I suffer from a nasty caffeine-withdrawal headache.
It's kind of weird, really, how this obvious addiction affects me. It's like my brain/body lack the ability to correlate the caffeine with the high, and the lack of it with the low, and so I lack the compulsion to go after it unless I'm in the environment where I normally drink coffee. Is this an advantage? Maybe. It also happens with foods -- some foods give me indigestion, but damned if I can be bothered to remember which and stop eating them.
"A guilty man was framed", not "a guilty man framed [someone else]".
As in, O.J. was guilty*, but the prosecution essentially tried to frame him (for the very crime he was guilty of) with false evidence.
* Forgive my lack of caveats. My journalistic manners are not as strong as my belief that the man is in fact a murderer who walked because the prosecution couldn't make their case on the up-and-up.
Yeah, considering that our legal system is a Common Law system, and that it inherited from British Common Law with all it's many-centuries history, it's ridiculous to think that legal practice was ever simple enough to be contained in only a hundred books, much less one.
If it was so right for Bush to wiretap, then, shouldn't conservatives be defending Obama at least on this issue? If it was so wrong for Bush to wiretap, well, conservatives, where were you for eight years?
With their heads stuck up their hypocritical asses, that's where. Just like the Democratic liberals happily started shoving their heads up their asses as soon as a D took office. Just like many Libertarians would have gleefully done if their fantasy came true and Mr. Paul (or the actual Libertarian candidate) got in.
I try to avoid that, at the very least I don't associate with any political party, and I'm sure not going to defend Obama on this one. I did when it was an automatic continuation of Bush policy made by Bush DoJ appointees, but now his DoJ has made a decision and he has to stand on his own.
Good for you pointing out some hypocrisy in your own party, though.
The thing is, one could make the argument that Obama is defending Bush on warrantless wiretapping not necessarily because he plans on doing it himself, but because he wants to spare the USA the damage from some foreign policy implication of what Bush did.
You mean like how they kept the second wave of abu Ghraib photos secret based on the reasoning that it wouldn't undo anything that was done, and that the additional backlash against our people (not just soldiers) in Iraq wasn't worth the empty gesture?
That's... oddly plausible. At least, if I assume there's some damaging aspect to it like... we spied on UK or other allies' citizens, maybe even diplomats, without any probably cause. I don't know, I'm not going to craft an elaborate scenario where it all makes sense because as far as I'm concerned it still wouldn't. Look at abu Ghraib -- Iraqis knew more than enough to give us all the blowback we could handle, but because they kept the photos secret there's now a huge portion of Americans who are completely ignorant of the scale of the problem and think the worst that happened is a guy had to stand with a hood on his head, or be scared by a barking dog.
If something internationally (or otherwise) damaging went on, everyone needs to know about it. The people we're worried about pissing off will suspect enough already, and the American people need to know how bad things were so that we're all saying "That was too much, that was bad" instead of blowing it off as nothing like I see people doing with abu Ghraib. History at least needs to be able to make this judgement. I'd rather pierce the boil now and release the pressure rather than let it fester.
On the plus side, I suspect that a lot of what Obama is claiming in the filing will get smacked down by the courts, should it ever make it there.
I had no honeymoon -- I always expected a mixed bag, and was sure that to get things I wanted, I'd have to put up with things I absolutely didn't. I certainly wouldn't marry on the basis of "well they're the best of a bad bunch and hopefully more good than bad will come of it". And so far I've gotten what I hoped for...
But this is pretty damn bad. Not just trying to stiff-arm the lawsuits, but the justifications of national security and executive privilege used to do it. Because if the argument is that revealing what private agencies the NSA worked with in the past would damage national security by showing our enemies what channels may or may not be secure*, then that means that they are still doing it.
* Duh, wouldn't an enemy of the U.S. be at least as paranoid as a slashdotter and assume all channels that went through the U.S. were unsafe? What are they going to do? "Oh shit, the NSA worked with AT&T? Cancel our family cell plan, rollover minutes be damned!"
Isn't it a good thing that the police station is close to an area of high crime?
Yeah it might be a good thing if there really were more crime there. It was a glitch due to default settings when there was no address specified in a report that made it falsely appear that there was a high crime rate a block from the station.
Chances are they didn't, which means they won't know what warning signs were evident, nor will they know precisely what bit failed, nor will they know how it failed or even exactly when it failed.
Why do you feel that is the case? While the technological progression of making a long-range rocket may not be that far removed from the process nations went through in the 50s and 60s, and the knowledge still only held by a select few, that doesn't apply to the electronics and sensors that would make up a telemetry system. Even a place under sanction like NK would be able to easily acquire all of this, and would have the electrical engineers to make it work.
Given that for them every such launch is an international incident I would think they would want to get as much information as possible from each launch. Yes their ultimate goal is showmanship, but being able to get to the end point of a functional missile to demonstrate while burning as little of the remaining tolerance other nations have for them in the meantime seems like something they would aim for. They want to be seen as strong and threatening, not bumbling, so an endless series of trial-and-error tests with each one escalating tensions and costing them at the aid negotiating table seems like a bad idea.
Kinda like the semi-dud nuke they tested a few years back. I'm thinking they gathered every piece of data possible from that event, so that they could use the data to feed into their computer models and work out the kinks without further tests in the hopes that when they're ready for another test it'll be a full-on success and NK can declare themselves a nuclear power.
But if you have a reason to think differently, I'm all ears.
A one byte counter would get them to 255, I believe you mean a 3 bit counter.
Crows aren't that sophisticated. They use a one-hot code where bits 0-6 encode counting numbers 1-7 respectively, bit 7 encodes "lots". Technically they have no concept of zero, so the case where no bits are set is an unhandled exception but one they generally are unconcerned with.
The difference is not just semantics. If they are making decisions based on qualitative notions (more) as opposed to quantitative (2 more) then it is a difference between doing discrete mathematics vs. reacting to an analog signal. The latter of which is not what we normally consider math, at least in terms of the subject's thought process.
That's great and all, but in the final phase of the experiment, they obscured both piles of eggs behind screens so that the chicks could not see the piles. The chicks could only see the researchers move eggs in groups from behind one screen to the other, then move some eggs the other way, and so forth.
Even if their final evaluation was simply that pile A was bigger than pile B, even if their analysis of the number of eggs was "analog", getting to that result required adding and subtracting these "qualitative" values to nevertheless arrive at the right answer.
That's math, even if the quantities being operated upon are imprecise.
The Triggers (L1/L2/L3, R1/R2/R3) combined with the two analogue sticks are the primary controls for most modern games.
You mean for modern FPS games, which all such controllers suck for anyway. It's a valid observation, but if you wanted a controller optimized for FPS you would move the right analog stick to where the face buttons are, replacing the primary input, not move the left.
Try holding your Dualshock 2/3 in that configuration.
In what configuration? With your thumbs on both the DS analog sticks and your fingers on the shoulder triggers like you have to in order to play an FPS? Yeah I'm not seeing the advantage. With your hand relaxed and wrists straight, your thumb is only slightly inward from the angle of your wrist, and in line with the 1st bone of your forefinger which will be along the outside of the controller. I.e. pointing at the primary input location.
YMMV
Sure, nevertheless I have a hard time believing that everyone, including Sony, was wrong about where the ideal location for primary inputs were, and in their attempt to deliberately deemphasize the analog sticks, accidentally placed it in the superior position.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the projector bulb exploding? That's just what the theater told us (not the drafthouse btw, this is totally unrelated for curiosities' sake), but it certainly sounded accurate. In the theater we heard a loud bang, saw a blinding flash of light, and then there was nothing. Could that have been one of the silver nitrate ones?
Yeah, why would they have a copy of the new Star Trek film on hand the day before the official release of the new Star Trek film? It truly makes no sense.
But yes, I believe it was just theatrics. The detail that from the first-hand impressions I'm reading it sounds like the theatrics weren't exactly smooth actually lends authenticity. :)
Why would they have had the entire film print there, just in case? It doesn't make sense...
Because the movie was about to be released for-reals, so they'd need to be given a print?
But you're right, I'm thinking it was planned, except that doesn't explain the film melting which the blog says the owner was surprised and upset over, or having the writers for Khan there who started an impromptu Q&A session between when the film melted and Nimoy showed up. So either this was all theatrics (certainly possible at the Alamo) with some rough execution (also possible ;), or the only intended surprise was Nimoy's visit but the owner managed to work something out.
Either way, it sounds pretty cool to me. :)
Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
The part where you don't join us in frothing at the mouth and taking up pitch forks and torches in outcry against this heinous heresy!
Sorry, but it's not like ignoring Nemesis would result in the Trek franchise being unsullied, so I don't see it the same as the fact that there is only one Matrix movie. There were already bad Treks, including even numbered ones, and that's just part of the series charm... I guess.
No what really happened is that Nemesis was a real movie, and a real shitty movie. Nemesis was not just an even numbered Trek that sucked, it was an even numbered Trek that sucked so hard that it dragged everything around it into itself until its huge mass of suck collapsed and formed a singularity, making a wormhole into another dimension where the old odd-even rule simply doesn't apply any more.
Nemesis broke the pattern, literally. It's busted. We're in a new world where anything can happen, including good odd-numbered Treks. Also, I think Neptune is slightly more purple in this universe.
Those guys in Austin should demand a refund! They paid for a ticket for The Wrath of Khan, but that's not what they got. If it were me I'd be raising hell.
The story I heard via word of mouth was that they were actually going to play Wrath of Khan, with ten minutes of sneak-preview footage from the movie that hadn't been seen before as a bonus. However shortly after Wrath started playing, the old and damaged film caught fire and was destroyed. Then Nimoy revealed himself, and instead of showing the 10 minute teaser, they showed the whole film.
linky I found on a Drafthouse blog, btw.
I can't imagine (though I guess it's possible) even Spock himself would dare show the full movie without authorization. So that may have been planned. The destruction of a print of Wrath... probably wasn't.
The last time I had a film burn up (actually it was the projector bulb that exploded, side effect was the print was destroyed) all I got was a lousy refund. Getting to watch a world premiere of a movie I'd probably be interested in, rather than having my night out ruined, is way way better than a refund.
I seriously fucking wish I had been there and I may have been but I didn't even know they were running Wrath. Why do I not check the Drafthouse web page more often?!
But the guilty person and the one who were framed were the same, and you suggested you thought OJ was guilty, which is why it doesn't make any sense. But really, whoosh, right? I sure missed that one; i should have been like ROFLMAO.
Yeah you ain't kidding. Though the wiimote honestly gives the mouse a run for its money. Mouse is superior as a turning device, letting you easily scale between small turns and 180 (or more) spins with precision. But for aiming, the wiimote is on par at least. Also an analog stick is better than WASD/ESDF, though this is less important.
Either way, the only advantage of the Dual Shock over other controllers is that it makes my thumbs ache equally. :P
Unless you need the specific brands, you should not be asking for Tylenol when you just want acetaminophen/paracetamol, nor Advil/Nurofen when you just want ibuprofen. Active ingredients and doses differ between brands, so it's important to know what you're taking.
Not really. At least not in the U.S. For the basic items (i.e. Tylenol instead of Tylenol PM), the active ingredients and dosages are exactly the same amongst the name brands and all generics. The active ingredient is the singular pain killer (acetaminophen, ibuprofen), and the dosage is the maximum allowed without a prescription as defined by the FDA for the respective medication. The only difference between "Tylenol" and "HEB brand acetaminophen pain killer" is the formulas for the pills' filler. Which I understand does have some impact on the way in which the active ingredient is delivered, but really isn't anything I'm going to worry about. The important bit -- active ingredient and dose -- is precisely, 100% the same. Same with Advil vs Motrin vs ibuprofen generics. Same with Bayer vs asprin generics.
I'm an addict, quite well known among my friends for my grumpiness and mental slowness prior to my first cup of coffee. I drink at least 6 cups a day, closer to 12 most days.
However I pretty much only drink coffee at work. On weekends I don't drink any, and when I go on vacation I generally don't drink any. That sometimes means that I'm going a week or more without coffee, clearly long enough to experience withdrawal symptoms.
Oh and I certainly experience them. Hell, I probably experience them even after a day without. Headaches, sluggishness, upset stomach, you name it. However, even as I'm experiencing these symptoms, it never really occurs to me to drink some coffee to make them go away. The urge to get "my fix" doesn't come over me, so if I've decided I'm not drinking coffee that day, I don't drink coffee and it takes basically zero will power for me to avoid it, even as I suffer from a nasty caffeine-withdrawal headache.
It's kind of weird, really, how this obvious addiction affects me. It's like my brain/body lack the ability to correlate the caffeine with the high, and the lack of it with the low, and so I lack the compulsion to go after it unless I'm in the environment where I normally drink coffee. Is this an advantage? Maybe. It also happens with foods -- some foods give me indigestion, but damned if I can be bothered to remember which and stop eating them.
When what is said doesn't make any sense at all taken sarcastically or not, it messes up the detector.
"A guilty man was framed", not "a guilty man framed [someone else]".
As in, O.J. was guilty*, but the prosecution essentially tried to frame him (for the very crime he was guilty of) with false evidence.
* Forgive my lack of caveats. My journalistic manners are not as strong as my belief that the man is in fact a murderer who walked because the prosecution couldn't make their case on the up-and-up.
You unwashed *Nux homos wouldn't know sophisticated humor if it crawled up your leg and bit you on the dick.
That's simply untrue. That happened to me the other day, and I was all "Aaaah! Sophisticated humor, biting my dick! Aaaaah!" So shows what you know.
Yeah, considering that our legal system is a Common Law system, and that it inherited from British Common Law with all it's many-centuries history, it's ridiculous to think that legal practice was ever simple enough to be contained in only a hundred books, much less one.
If it was so right for Bush to wiretap, then, shouldn't conservatives be defending Obama at least on this issue? If it was so wrong for Bush to wiretap, well, conservatives, where were you for eight years?
With their heads stuck up their hypocritical asses, that's where. Just like the Democratic liberals happily started shoving their heads up their asses as soon as a D took office. Just like many Libertarians would have gleefully done if their fantasy came true and Mr. Paul (or the actual Libertarian candidate) got in.
I try to avoid that, at the very least I don't associate with any political party, and I'm sure not going to defend Obama on this one. I did when it was an automatic continuation of Bush policy made by Bush DoJ appointees, but now his DoJ has made a decision and he has to stand on his own.
Good for you pointing out some hypocrisy in your own party, though.
The thing is, one could make the argument that Obama is defending Bush on warrantless wiretapping not necessarily because he plans on doing it himself, but because he wants to spare the USA the damage from some foreign policy implication of what Bush did.
You mean like how they kept the second wave of abu Ghraib photos secret based on the reasoning that it wouldn't undo anything that was done, and that the additional backlash against our people (not just soldiers) in Iraq wasn't worth the empty gesture?
That's... oddly plausible. At least, if I assume there's some damaging aspect to it like... we spied on UK or other allies' citizens, maybe even diplomats, without any probably cause. I don't know, I'm not going to craft an elaborate scenario where it all makes sense because as far as I'm concerned it still wouldn't. Look at abu Ghraib -- Iraqis knew more than enough to give us all the blowback we could handle, but because they kept the photos secret there's now a huge portion of Americans who are completely ignorant of the scale of the problem and think the worst that happened is a guy had to stand with a hood on his head, or be scared by a barking dog.
If something internationally (or otherwise) damaging went on, everyone needs to know about it. The people we're worried about pissing off will suspect enough already, and the American people need to know how bad things were so that we're all saying "That was too much, that was bad" instead of blowing it off as nothing like I see people doing with abu Ghraib. History at least needs to be able to make this judgement. I'd rather pierce the boil now and release the pressure rather than let it fester.
On the plus side, I suspect that a lot of what Obama is claiming in the filing will get smacked down by the courts, should it ever make it there.
I had no honeymoon -- I always expected a mixed bag, and was sure that to get things I wanted, I'd have to put up with things I absolutely didn't. I certainly wouldn't marry on the basis of "well they're the best of a bad bunch and hopefully more good than bad will come of it". And so far I've gotten what I hoped for...
But this is pretty damn bad. Not just trying to stiff-arm the lawsuits, but the justifications of national security and executive privilege used to do it. Because if the argument is that revealing what private agencies the NSA worked with in the past would damage national security by showing our enemies what channels may or may not be secure*, then that means that they are still doing it.
* Duh, wouldn't an enemy of the U.S. be at least as paranoid as a slashdotter and assume all channels that went through the U.S. were unsafe? What are they going to do? "Oh shit, the NSA worked with AT&T? Cancel our family cell plan, rollover minutes be damned!"
Customer said "many" not "all", therefore I'm re-opening the bug with priority CRITICAL. We must get to the bottom of this!
By a nuclear war for example.
Why go to such extremes?
root@internet# shutdown -h +30 "Teh Intarwebs are going down!"
Isn't it a good thing that the police station is close to an area of high crime?
Yeah it might be a good thing if there really were more crime there. It was a glitch due to default settings when there was no address specified in a report that made it falsely appear that there was a high crime rate a block from the station.
Speaking as an ex-submariner, I pretty certain you're right on target.
I can see why you would have gotten out of that gig. I mean, who would want to be a lame rip-off of the already lame Aquaman?
But yeah that does explain how you got an up-close view of U.S. naval recovery operations using submar.... waitaminute.
Chances are they didn't, which means they won't know what warning signs were evident, nor will they know precisely what bit failed, nor will they know how it failed or even exactly when it failed.
Why do you feel that is the case? While the technological progression of making a long-range rocket may not be that far removed from the process nations went through in the 50s and 60s, and the knowledge still only held by a select few, that doesn't apply to the electronics and sensors that would make up a telemetry system. Even a place under sanction like NK would be able to easily acquire all of this, and would have the electrical engineers to make it work.
Given that for them every such launch is an international incident I would think they would want to get as much information as possible from each launch. Yes their ultimate goal is showmanship, but being able to get to the end point of a functional missile to demonstrate while burning as little of the remaining tolerance other nations have for them in the meantime seems like something they would aim for. They want to be seen as strong and threatening, not bumbling, so an endless series of trial-and-error tests with each one escalating tensions and costing them at the aid negotiating table seems like a bad idea.
Kinda like the semi-dud nuke they tested a few years back. I'm thinking they gathered every piece of data possible from that event, so that they could use the data to feed into their computer models and work out the kinks without further tests in the hopes that when they're ready for another test it'll be a full-on success and NK can declare themselves a nuclear power.
But if you have a reason to think differently, I'm all ears.
The parent post was talking about Bush sarcastically, because he's become the scapegoat for anything possibly perceived as wrong in American policy.
Which is totally Bush's fault.
A one byte counter would get them to 255, I believe you mean a 3 bit counter.
Crows aren't that sophisticated. They use a one-hot code where bits 0-6 encode counting numbers 1-7 respectively, bit 7 encodes "lots". Technically they have no concept of zero, so the case where no bits are set is an unhandled exception but one they generally are unconcerned with.
The difference is not just semantics. If they are making decisions based on qualitative notions (more) as opposed to quantitative (2 more) then it is a difference between doing discrete mathematics vs. reacting to an analog signal. The latter of which is not what we normally consider math, at least in terms of the subject's thought process.
That's great and all, but in the final phase of the experiment, they obscured both piles of eggs behind screens so that the chicks could not see the piles. The chicks could only see the researchers move eggs in groups from behind one screen to the other, then move some eggs the other way, and so forth.
Even if their final evaluation was simply that pile A was bigger than pile B, even if their analysis of the number of eggs was "analog", getting to that result required adding and subtracting these "qualitative" values to nevertheless arrive at the right answer.
That's math, even if the quantities being operated upon are imprecise.
The Triggers (L1/L2/L3, R1/R2/R3) combined with the two analogue sticks are the primary controls for most modern games.
You mean for modern FPS games, which all such controllers suck for anyway. It's a valid observation, but if you wanted a controller optimized for FPS you would move the right analog stick to where the face buttons are, replacing the primary input, not move the left.
Try holding your Dualshock 2/3 in that configuration.
In what configuration? With your thumbs on both the DS analog sticks and your fingers on the shoulder triggers like you have to in order to play an FPS? Yeah I'm not seeing the advantage. With your hand relaxed and wrists straight, your thumb is only slightly inward from the angle of your wrist, and in line with the 1st bone of your forefinger which will be along the outside of the controller. I.e. pointing at the primary input location.
YMMV
Sure, nevertheless I have a hard time believing that everyone, including Sony, was wrong about where the ideal location for primary inputs were, and in their attempt to deliberately deemphasize the analog sticks, accidentally placed it in the superior position.