Then all you need to do is write all the OS utilities al over again to use Perl and Python objects. And then you'll be using Linux officially because the kernel is the same. But the console UI won't be like anyone else's Linux.
Basically it's a nonsense. The Linux console COULD be written to pass objects between standard OS programs, but it was not. Linux has the UNIX paradigm of piping arbitrary ASCII streams between programs. And the presence of Python and Perl (as on every OS) doesn't change that.
That's all well and good, but the reason people like Linux is that it gives you a choice.
Every general purpose OS has a "choice". With this the difference between the two is Linux (and other Unix like OSs) use unstructured text for communicating between console programs, and Windows Powershell uses objects.
Same for any system that gives developers choice over the look and feel of their programs UI When I was a windows user, I remember a music program called "Winamp" (quick google says the project's still going) It's main selling point was it discarded the cluttered UI and overly large buttons and borders of the "standard winows UI", and used it's own custom design This cut down the screen wastage, and made the program non-intrusive You really want a system that's so rigid and inflexible that you/have/ to conform to a set way of doing things?
I don't know of any general purpose OS that's "so rigid and inflexible that you/have/ to conform to a set way of doing things". They all have games for example that invariably have unique UIs.
The point is that it's good to have a central set of UI paradigms that are used unless there's a good reason not to, such that users know what to expect. It can take the form of a document, or it can be implicit in the design of the applications that ship with the OS. Linux doesn't really have that. There's a big variety of different paradigms, none with any particular authority.
No one with any sense takes the police recorded crime statistics to mean anything at all. The ONS British Crime Survey is the quality measure of crime trends.
Stereo sound, at its inception, was disorienting to some patrons.
According to your reference, ONE theatre owner made the comment. And it sounds like it was for a horror film that also had 3D visuals. So perhaps it was meant to be disorientating.
*If* things pick up. This isn't just a crisis of confidence. Its a debt crisis bought about by the western world living beyond it's means for so long. Then up ahead there's China taking over as world economic superpower, peak oil and global warming.
The natural order isn't necessarily economic growth interspersed with a few short lived recessions. See the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The British Empire. The days of the American Empire look numbered.
IMAX allows for more immersion and realism too. Yet with 30 years of IMAX we're still waiting for a film with a decent story. The problem is IMAX is great for great panoramas, and giving the experience of motion. But it's a poor format for showing people talking intimately to one another, which forms the basis for a human story.
3D is not as bad for taking away from story as IMAX is, but again, it's strengths are as an experience, not as an addition to storytelling. And the novelty of experience wears off - but people never tire of storytelling.
Color added to the story in the Wizard of Oz, 28 weeks later...
Digital projection doesn't improve cinema for the viewers, it's there for the convenience of distribution.
The other two, sure they improve the experience, not the story.
The difference between those things and 3D are that they only improve the experience. For many people 3D degrades the experience. It gives them headaches or nausea.
It's not my opinion, it's self evidently true. Take any 3D film and lose the 3D effect - you've lost none of the story. Indeed that's exactly what they do at cinemas - show the 3D films also in 2D.
Now take any film with a complex story and watch it for the first time with the sound off. You're going to lose lots of the story.
I like popcorn, so all else being equal I'll go to a cinema that has it in preference to one that hasn't. But yes, one has to be aware of others. As wel as what you mention, the other thing is to eat the popcorn during the noisy parts of the film, not the quiet bits. During a car chase or a gun battle, no one is going to be disturbed by popcorn sounds.
I mean., you PAUSE the movie. The completely ruins the movie experience. Which is fine, but don't delude yourself it's the same thing.
Hey youngster, Cinemas used to have intermissions until about the 1970s. I know of one local indie that still does. It's good to be able to go and get refreshments halfway through a movie rather than at the start, and take the opportunity to chat to friends about what you're enjoying so far, if you're confused by anything, any theories about what the twist at the end might be, and what the director/actor is doing particularly well.
A bit like the interval in a play at the theatre really.
It's a novelty. My city has had IMAX since the early 80s. Attendance at the local multiplex is much higher than the IMAX cinema. IMAX is a great experience, but once you've had the experience a few times you just want to see a film with a good story.
Same will happen to 3D, just as it happened in the 1950s and 70s. The novelty will wear off.
You're either not a developer or not a good one. I've "dealt" with fragmentation in Android applications, and it takes all of half a day to research how to handle it effectively and 15 minutes to implement
ROFL. You just proved you're not a (good) developer. And maybe hinted at another of the reasons Android apps tend to be shit. You didn't give a single thought to the time and expense of testing on multiple devices and OS versions for a start.
Slashdot Mirror
Then all you need to do is write all the OS utilities al over again to use Perl and Python objects. And then you'll be using Linux officially because the kernel is the same. But the console UI won't be like anyone else's Linux.
Basically it's a nonsense. The Linux console COULD be written to pass objects between standard OS programs, but it was not. Linux has the UNIX paradigm of piping arbitrary ASCII streams between programs. And the presence of Python and Perl (as on every OS) doesn't change that.
That's all well and good, but the reason people like Linux is that it gives you a choice.
Every general purpose OS has a "choice". With this the difference between the two is Linux (and other Unix like OSs) use unstructured text for communicating between console programs, and Windows Powershell uses objects.
Same for any system that gives developers choice over the look and feel of their programs UI /have/ to conform to a set way of doing things?
When I was a windows user, I remember a music program called "Winamp" (quick google says the project's still going)
It's main selling point was it discarded the cluttered UI and overly large buttons and borders of the "standard winows UI", and used it's own custom design
This cut down the screen wastage, and made the program non-intrusive
You really want a system that's so rigid and inflexible that you
I don't know of any general purpose OS that's "so rigid and inflexible that you /have/ to conform to a set way of doing things". They all have games for example that invariably have unique UIs.
The point is that it's good to have a central set of UI paradigms that are used unless there's a good reason not to, such that users know what to expect. It can take the form of a document, or it can be implicit in the design of the applications that ship with the OS. Linux doesn't really have that. There's a big variety of different paradigms, none with any particular authority.
No one with any sense takes the police recorded crime statistics to mean anything at all. The ONS British Crime Survey is the quality measure of crime trends.
Actually they are underselling. Cameron is prime minister of the United Kingdom, not just Great Britain.
No, it's perfectly possible for a volunteer to put more work in than an employee. Possible but more than a little unusual.
OSX, OSX, Photoshop, Maya.
Browsers are a special case where the market was devalued by Microsoft, so all the main players are free.
Stereo sound, at its inception, was disorienting to some patrons.
According to your reference, ONE theatre owner made the comment. And it sounds like it was for a horror film that also had 3D visuals. So perhaps it was meant to be disorientating.
None of what you say has anything to do with storytelling. It's just visual novelty.
Yes it does [allow for telling a more interesting story] ..or can, rather.
Example please. In your other post you used Avatar. The story of Avatar is just as interesting in 2D - it's the very same story.
*If* things pick up. This isn't just a crisis of confidence. Its a debt crisis bought about by the western world living beyond it's means for so long. Then up ahead there's China taking over as world economic superpower, peak oil and global warming.
The natural order isn't necessarily economic growth interspersed with a few short lived recessions. See the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The British Empire. The days of the American Empire look numbered.
You are aware that the 3D being used now is not the same as the 3D that was done in the 50s and 70s right?
No really? Well who da thunk it? I thought they were all using victorian stereoscopic "what the butler saw" machines.
Still motion 3D has been popular for decades
Never heard of it.
IMAX allows for more immersion and realism too. Yet with 30 years of IMAX we're still waiting for a film with a decent story. The problem is IMAX is great for great panoramas, and giving the experience of motion. But it's a poor format for showing people talking intimately to one another, which forms the basis for a human story.
3D is not as bad for taking away from story as IMAX is, but again, it's strengths are as an experience, not as an addition to storytelling. And the novelty of experience wears off - but people never tire of storytelling.
Color added to the story in the Wizard of Oz, 28 weeks later...
Digital projection doesn't improve cinema for the viewers, it's there for the convenience of distribution.
The other two, sure they improve the experience, not the story.
The difference between those things and 3D are that they only improve the experience. For many people 3D degrades the experience. It gives them headaches or nausea.
the 3D was done quite well and allowed some very interesting shots of the carnage.
That's not story. That's cinematography.
It's not my opinion, it's self evidently true. Take any 3D film and lose the 3D effect - you've lost none of the story. Indeed that's exactly what they do at cinemas - show the 3D films also in 2D.
Now take any film with a complex story and watch it for the first time with the sound off. You're going to lose lots of the story.
I like popcorn, so all else being equal I'll go to a cinema that has it in preference to one that hasn't. But yes, one has to be aware of others. As wel as what you mention, the other thing is to eat the popcorn during the noisy parts of the film, not the quiet bits. During a car chase or a gun battle, no one is going to be disturbed by popcorn sounds.
I mean., you PAUSE the movie. The completely ruins the movie experience.
Which is fine, but don't delude yourself it's the same thing.
Hey youngster, Cinemas used to have intermissions until about the 1970s. I know of one local indie that still does. It's good to be able to go and get refreshments halfway through a movie rather than at the start, and take the opportunity to chat to friends about what you're enjoying so far, if you're confused by anything, any theories about what the twist at the end might be, and what the director/actor is doing particularly well.
A bit like the interval in a play at the theatre really.
You had a TV? Luxury! ...
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the percentage split varies depending on which week it is? Never heard of that.
No Country for Old Men.
Up!
The King's Speech.
The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure, Piranha, Xanadu... ?
It's a novelty. My city has had IMAX since the early 80s. Attendance at the local multiplex is much higher than the IMAX cinema. IMAX is a great experience, but once you've had the experience a few times you just want to see a film with a good story.
Same will happen to 3D, just as it happened in the 1950s and 70s. The novelty will wear off.
Audio allows for telling a more interesting story. 3D doesn't.
You're either not a developer or not a good one. I've "dealt" with fragmentation in Android applications, and it takes all of half a day to research how to handle it effectively and 15 minutes to implement
ROFL. You just proved you're not a (good) developer. And maybe hinted at another of the reasons Android apps tend to be shit. You didn't give a single thought to the time and expense of testing on multiple devices and OS versions for a start.