The software continues to function even if you don't renew your.Mac subscription. Think of it as the software equivalent of eMusic.com. Except you don't choose the software and it's an add-on to the main package, rather than being the mean reason for it existing.
Knows they should is a little different to actually doing it. And it's a bit of a small sample size. It's scary to think what the country would be like if my friends were a representative group:^)
Not strictly true. Command-click has the same function as middle click in some apps such as Safari and Camino (open tabs). Control click and right click accomplish the same thing in any app supporting contextual menus. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. For instance, you can't use middle click for command-click in Photoshop.
Tangentially: a BA in Cognitive Science? Shouldn't that be Cognitive Art, then?
Some universities award BAs for science subjects. Oxford for instance has a tradition of awarding only BAs, so a physicist will leave with a BA in Physics, rather than a BSci. The Masters would be an MPhys, however.
He wasn't talking about Star Trek fans, or at elast if he intended to, this
For people in Europe, it's pretty much irrelevant which region it's encoded for, since the majority of people get their DVD player fixed when they buy the machine.
I'm curious about how you can be so sure about that. Is this your experience with your circle on friends, has a survey been done nationally, or what? This is genuine curiosity, BTW, not an attempt to be sarcastic.
Another thing that I've been wondering about is why Smith tried to contaminate Neo with his blood - remember how in Reloaded the man "possessed" by Smith was cutting his hand when he was about to shake Neo's hand - only to be stopped at the last minute. My guess is that in Revolutions he will get his chance.
I thought he was simply going to stab Neo, but because he didn't get the chance, he had to hide the knife in his hand and ended up getting cut by it. Seems like a much simpler explanation.
And the true use for humans is more than likely parallel processing on a huge scale.
But then again I may be wrong.
That was what the writers originally wanted, but the money rollers thought people wouldn't understand that and made them dumb it down. Or so I've heard.
The criticism of Halo was in quite a few places ridiculous. They bashed it for using a controller to aim, rather than mouse and keyboard. Surely if you're reviewing a console game, you review it in the context of consoles, rather than PCs? The controller aiming is fairly decent in Halo and I don't seem GoldenEye being lambasted in the list for being a console FPS.
It was criticised quite a few times for forcing people to play multi-player on split screen, complaining that 4 people on screen makes for a poor gaming experience. Given that a single console can only be hooked up to one TV, how else do they suggest multiplayer be implemented? To use more than one TV, you'll need more than one console; on the PC, if you want to play multiplayer, you can't unless you have multiple computers, so how is Halo at a disadvantage here? It allows you to play on a LAN, contrary to what one reviewer suggested and gives you the option of playing on a single console. What's the problem here?
Criticism of some of the level design is fair enough, particularly where Library is concerned, but to say 'Worst of all were the levels, which offered fleeting glimpses of brilliance, but all too often degenerated into recycling the same areas over and over until you were bored to tears.' is over-exaggeration. The first 6 levels are all offer very different environments which look amazing and play brilliantly. Level 7 is repetitive. Level 8 is basically 5 backwards, but plays a bit differently, you face different foes and you go to a couple of new places, so it's not boring. Level 9 is superficially similar to 3 but has quite a few different sections and much harder opposition. Level 10 retreads a lot of level 1, but adds a few new sections and lets you drive a warthog about the place. The external environments are all stunning, quite a bit of the indoor stuff looks quite groovy and it's only really the Library that is a let down.
The last guy calls the multiplayer levels unbalanced, messy and boring, but doesn't say which ones or why. The most popular ones are probably Hang em High, Prisoner and Blood Gulch and I fail to see what is boring or messy about any of them. I fail to see what is unbalanced about any of them, especially given that a good chunk of the levels are 90% symmetrical. In fact, he says he doesn't like PC FPSes or 4 player split-screen on a console. I'm not aware of any shooters prior to Halo that could work over a console LAN, so basically his problem is... he doesn't like FPSes, especially multiplayer. That's hardly reason to call a game over-rated.
My final qualm is with their 'been done better before' award. Which console FPS done what Halo does better? They acknowledge lovely graphics. They say the AI is the best they've seen. The 2 weapons thing is innovative. So who did these better?
Dude, calm down. I didn't read anything about noise in cheesekeeper's post.
Neither did I, which is why I pointed it out to him. He seemed to think all the fans were going to be needed. I was pointing out that you could have a viable portable with fewer fans.
The larger-form-function PowerMac has room to put nine (allegedly, I haven't heard one up close yet) quiet fans in, but how the hell can you fit x number of fans into the small form-factor of a notebook. That's why it's a big engineering project.
No, that's not the reason. You don't need 9 fans; you need less, because as I pointed out, they aren't all needed, even in the opt of the line dual 2 GHz model and the reason there are so many is to keep noise down, rather than to keep it cool. A single proc G5 would need considerably fewer fans, especially if you permit a higher noise level.
Actually, I remember reading that Apple used to quote its monitor sizes in viewable area, rather than tube size. Because of this, they were being killed by other companies who were advertising their 15" monitors at the same price as Apple's 14". Apple eventually changed to the industry convention so as to compete with the average shopper who didn't realise that two systems were in use. Anyone who tried the same with hard drives would suffer a similar problem. And things would get really confusing.
I had a Performa 6500 for all of a week before taking it back in frustration and getting one of the last great clones (PCC Power Tower Pro 225; woohoo!).
Nice machine. I remember seeing ads for it in magazines and wishing we had one. They severely embarrassed Apple with their speed.
It's true, the tower itself was cool looking, but I had no end of hardware problems with it and I was bummed about the lack of expandability. At the time I think there was a big difference between the 603s and 604s, and it was noticeable enough when I got the PCC clone.
There was a fair difference, yeah. Our 200Mhz 603e was equivalent to anywhere between a 120 and 160 MHz 604e, depending on who you asked and what you were doing. Or maybe it was 120 604e and 160 604. The e was fairly important. I didn't care too much about the megahertz though; I just though it was cool that we had 24 megs of RAM - 50% more than most computers shipping at the time. Was a nice upgrade from an 8 MHz, 1 MB 720 Kb floppy Atari STE (again, the important e. Magic letter that).
Depends on which one. The 6400/6500 line were pretty neat. Attractive mini-tower with a big bass speaker and home video editing in the mid 90s. My sister was still using a 6400 until she got an iBook at Christmas.
Good grief, I see comments like this in every story about the G5. There are large numbers of fans so that the machine can run quietly. They could have got by with less if they made a machine as loud as a typical Intel/AMD offering. The fans spend most of their time not spinning or at very, very low revs. Also means that they can add faster, hotter processors for quite a while before they need to worry about changing the design.
It's a forward-looking, quiet, controlled bit of design, not a roaring oven.
I hadn't thought about it the way you explained it. It isn't that the access times have been improving too slowly; it's that the capacity has been improving too quickly.
He seems to be suggesting that rather than try to make access quicker, we should stop making hard drives bigger. ?!?!
No, Jobs wasn't even back at Apple then. It was several years later. There was a demo shown in 99 and I think there was info released about it in 98, though I'm not entirely sure if it was that early.
Just to nitpick, it's not the twin paradox; it's relativity. The twin paradox is die to relativity as well, but him living longer is not because of the paradox. Which isn't even a paradox anyway.
How long has it been since they liberated any other country from tyranny?
Gulf War just over a decade ago., when they helped liberate Kuwait. Not sure if there's been anything in between. Not sure whether they made a contribution towards Afghanistan. Not to be sneered at anyway.
Errr, I think that someone who intends to use limited range WiFi to get a viable audience for a band is the one with the knowledge gap. This is nothing more than an attempt at a face-facing exit.
Broadband is getting cheaper constantly. I fully expect the price of a month of broadband to be more or less equal to the price of a CD in five years. Ten at most.
Dialup is pretty cheap now, but there are still millions without it in the USA and most of the rest of the western world. Look outside there and the percentage of people with even a computer, let alone net access, becomes pretty small.
And based on the problems the music industry is having, there are obviously people who have no problem with 128 MP3. Whiny geeks here are in fact a minority. And, if you really care about your audio quality, you can feel free to buy a CD. After all, if enough people really do care, the industry should be able to keep itself going based on them, right?
If CDs still existed as a choice, at a cost no greater than at present, then I'd certainly be a lot more at ease with this idea.
Oh for God's sake, did you read all the text you quoted? I gave a list of things that could be offered. Red Hat was an analogy. Try to actually respond to points I make. It'll make this whole reasoned exchange of ideas thing go a lot more smoothly
Calm down, I'm aware it was analogy. Do me the courtesy of reading all of ym comment too and you'll find the point answered in greater detail. I was simply pointing out that the analogy was rather limited since RedHat wouldn't be a viable large company without support contracts and there would be no analogous situation for music.
Again, I have seen people buy high-end music equipment with their summer job money and what they have for spending money in college. I've seen people with said high-end music equipment get record deals with indie labels. You can buy their music on Amazon if you want. Somehow, I don't think the money issue is that big.
The money has to come from somewhere, which means they must either have a rich family, or are working another job. If they're working another job, it means less time and energy to devote to music, so it suffers. And this is hardly an example of how music is going to be cheaply made available round the world. Yes, I could buy the music, but never having heard of the band, seen them in concert, seen them on TV, seen their CDs in a store, why would I? Face it, marketing plays an important part in getting music distributed and marketing requires money. Without it, you can be successful locally, but it'll be very difficult to go further.
When they decide they want one instead of touring? I don't know. When do you suggest someone who really likes to go fishing have a proper holiday instead of going up and fishing for a week? If what they like doing is playing in their band, well, then...
It's not a matter of what they like doing; it's a matter of being able to function. If you're working and touring all year without a holiday, you'll be wrecked. Work will suffer, as will the music. And probably your relationships with other people. Bad idea.
Hell, with reasonable ingenuity you could probably do a webcast concert with modest success...
If you want more than a dozen people to watch at any sort of decent quality, you'll need some impressive hosting gear. It's not something your local small time band is going to be able to do.
In the end, I don't think the music industry is worth saving. I think the market does not support them, and they are only kept solvent through government intervention in the form of copyright laws, and, particularly, the DMCA. And that's bloody ludicrous.
I think they're kept solvent because people like music and people like music from more than just their nearest city. The music industry was doing fine before the DMCA and the DMCa is a purely USA thing, so don't blame it for keeping the indu
The beatles were a local band - they played Liverpool for years before anyone here heard of'em. So were the stones. And I actually know someone who had Van Halen play at one of their parties - of course, that was long before they became part of a "label."
You've completely missed my point. I want to be able to hear bands from all round the world, not just the nearest city. I"m sure musicians want to be heard al around the world. Your business model focusses purely on a small local market and quite frankly sucks for both the musician and the world.
Every band begins local. Even when your dad runs a record company you still start local - just ask "..and get'em the Hell outta Detroit" Douggie Feiger. The way your band moves from "local" to "nationwide" is in lots of small steps - steps you pretty obviously are not familiar with, as this shows in your comments. Steps like playing locally as a opening act for an already established headliner, touring as an opening act, touring on "palooza" type circus shows, touring other countries to see how your stuff plays there...
Under your model, there would be no tours because there's going to be no-one to bankroll them. No-one is going to get beyond the local stage; Your comments show that you are fixated with keeping musicians bound to a single city.
Apaprently you know as much about networking as you know about the music biz, cuz it's nothing at all like that.
Yet again, you completely fail to miss my point.
Wireless requires none of that. I can share files with my neighbor all fucking year - moving gigabytes a day - and it hasn't a fucking thing to do with my ISP. My ISP won't even know about it. And because of that connection we become, in a very real sense, a community. Not just a community in the "hi charlie how's the wife" sense, but a community in the "check out this clip I found at work today" sense. And potentially a community in the free local phone service/community broadcasting/leave-the-webcam-on-and-I'll watch-your-house-while-you're-on-vacation neighborhood watch sense.
Your community is limited to people within a very short range. You are relying on a lot of people having WiFi and opening up their networks for you to access. Musicians relying on that would have trouble being heard more than a street away. My point was that WiFi is only any good if you ant your neighbour to be able to check out your music. It's useless for letting anyone outside your city know about you.
"Dude" that ain't necessarily true.
It's true for most cases. Particularly for bands with actual musicians.
And even if it were universally true that has nothing at all to do with the internet. I've known hundreds of people in bands of all flavors, and the one thing that is universally true is Hollywood did not pay for their instruments until they were big enough that Hollywood wanted to pay for their instruments.
Why this obsession with Holywood? You do realise they make movies, not music, right?
struggling musicians will still have to struggle to buy keyboards and guitars and drums and strings and picks and sticks - but that is neither harder for them because of file sharing, nor a problem created by file sharing.
They don't have any problems with file sharing because no-one is buying their music anyway. Relatively speaking. Money for instruments has to come from somewhere. If they can't earn money from albums, then they have to have another job, which means less time and energy for music, a point which you consistently ignore.
If anything it becomes easier for them, since it's now nearly trivial for a band to setup a webpage and stick a virtual hat on the sidewalk. And if that bandwidth is 100% free (which
Slashdot Mirror
The software continues to function even if you don't renew your .Mac subscription. Think of it as the software equivalent of eMusic.com. Except you don't choose the software and it's an add-on to the main package, rather than being the mean reason for it existing.
I managed to get VT+ before renewing. Not sure why you wouldn't be able to.
Knows they should is a little different to actually doing it. And it's a bit of a small sample size. It's scary to think what the country would be like if my friends were a representative group :^)
Not strictly true. Command-click has the same function as middle click in some apps such as Safari and Camino (open tabs). Control click and right click accomplish the same thing in any app supporting contextual menus. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. For instance, you can't use middle click for command-click in Photoshop.
Some universities award BAs for science subjects. Oxford for instance has a tradition of awarding only BAs, so a physicist will leave with a BA in Physics, rather than a BSci. The Masters would be an MPhys, however.
He wasn't talking about Star Trek fans, or at elast if he intended to, this
implies otherwise.
I'm curious about how you can be so sure about that. Is this your experience with your circle on friends, has a survey been done nationally, or what? This is genuine curiosity, BTW, not an attempt to be sarcastic.
The majority of people who by DVDs aren't even aware there is a region system, let alone know how to modify their player.
I thought he was simply going to stab Neo, but because he didn't get the chance, he had to hide the knife in his hand and ended up getting cut by it. Seems like a much simpler explanation.
That was what the writers originally wanted, but the money rollers thought people wouldn't understand that and made them dumb it down. Or so I've heard.
The criticism of Halo was in quite a few places ridiculous. They bashed it for using a controller to aim, rather than mouse and keyboard. Surely if you're reviewing a console game, you review it in the context of consoles, rather than PCs? The controller aiming is fairly decent in Halo and I don't seem GoldenEye being lambasted in the list for being a console FPS.
It was criticised quite a few times for forcing people to play multi-player on split screen, complaining that 4 people on screen makes for a poor gaming experience. Given that a single console can only be hooked up to one TV, how else do they suggest multiplayer be implemented? To use more than one TV, you'll need more than one console; on the PC, if you want to play multiplayer, you can't unless you have multiple computers, so how is Halo at a disadvantage here? It allows you to play on a LAN, contrary to what one reviewer suggested and gives you the option of playing on a single console. What's the problem here?
Criticism of some of the level design is fair enough, particularly where Library is concerned, but to say 'Worst of all were the levels, which offered fleeting glimpses of brilliance, but all too often degenerated into recycling the same areas over and over until you were bored to tears.' is over-exaggeration. The first 6 levels are all offer very different environments which look amazing and play brilliantly. Level 7 is repetitive. Level 8 is basically 5 backwards, but plays a bit differently, you face different foes and you go to a couple of new places, so it's not boring. Level 9 is superficially similar to 3 but has quite a few different sections and much harder opposition. Level 10 retreads a lot of level 1, but adds a few new sections and lets you drive a warthog about the place. The external environments are all stunning, quite a bit of the indoor stuff looks quite groovy and it's only really the Library that is a let down.
The last guy calls the multiplayer levels unbalanced, messy and boring, but doesn't say which ones or why. The most popular ones are probably Hang em High, Prisoner and Blood Gulch and I fail to see what is boring or messy about any of them. I fail to see what is unbalanced about any of them, especially given that a good chunk of the levels are 90% symmetrical. In fact, he says he doesn't like PC FPSes or 4 player split-screen on a console. I'm not aware of any shooters prior to Halo that could work over a console LAN, so basically his problem is... he doesn't like FPSes, especially multiplayer. That's hardly reason to call a game over-rated.
My final qualm is with their 'been done better before' award. Which console FPS done what Halo does better? They acknowledge lovely graphics. They say the AI is the best they've seen. The 2 weapons thing is innovative. So who did these better?
Neither did I, which is why I pointed it out to him. He seemed to think all the fans were going to be needed. I was pointing out that you could have a viable portable with fewer fans.
No, that's not the reason. You don't need 9 fans; you need less, because as I pointed out, they aren't all needed, even in the opt of the line dual 2 GHz model and the reason there are so many is to keep noise down, rather than to keep it cool. A single proc G5 would need considerably fewer fans, especially if you permit a higher noise level.
Actually, I remember reading that Apple used to quote its monitor sizes in viewable area, rather than tube size. Because of this, they were being killed by other companies who were advertising their 15" monitors at the same price as Apple's 14". Apple eventually changed to the industry convention so as to compete with the average shopper who didn't realise that two systems were in use. Anyone who tried the same with hard drives would suffer a similar problem. And things would get really confusing.
Nice machine. I remember seeing ads for it in magazines and wishing we had one. They severely embarrassed Apple with their speed.
There was a fair difference, yeah. Our 200Mhz 603e was equivalent to anywhere between a 120 and 160 MHz 604e, depending on who you asked and what you were doing. Or maybe it was 120 604e and 160 604. The e was fairly important. I didn't care too much about the megahertz though; I just though it was cool that we had 24 megs of RAM - 50% more than most computers shipping at the time. Was a nice upgrade from an 8 MHz, 1 MB 720 Kb floppy Atari STE (again, the important e. Magic letter that).
Depends on which one. The 6400/6500 line were pretty neat. Attractive mini-tower with a big bass speaker and home video editing in the mid 90s. My sister was still using a 6400 until she got an iBook at Christmas.
Good grief, I see comments like this in every story about the G5. There are large numbers of fans so that the machine can run quietly. They could have got by with less if they made a machine as loud as a typical Intel/AMD offering. The fans spend most of their time not spinning or at very, very low revs. Also means that they can add faster, hotter processors for quite a while before they need to worry about changing the design. It's a forward-looking, quiet, controlled bit of design, not a roaring oven.
Or:
He seems to be suggesting that rather than try to make access quicker, we should stop making hard drives bigger. ?!?!
No, Jobs wasn't even back at Apple then. It was several years later. There was a demo shown in 99 and I think there was info released about it in 98, though I'm not entirely sure if it was that early.
Just to nitpick, it's not the twin paradox; it's relativity. The twin paradox is die to relativity as well, but him living longer is not because of the paradox. Which isn't even a paradox anyway.
Gulf War just over a decade ago., when they helped liberate Kuwait. Not sure if there's been anything in between. Not sure whether they made a contribution towards Afghanistan. Not to be sneered at anyway.
No, I was pointing that you were a troll. Hence me saying 'I have been trolled'.
Errr, I think that someone who intends to use limited range WiFi to get a viable audience for a band is the one with the knowledge gap. This is nothing more than an attempt at a face-facing exit.
IHBT, IHL, HAND.
Dialup is pretty cheap now, but there are still millions without it in the USA and most of the rest of the western world. Look outside there and the percentage of people with even a computer, let alone net access, becomes pretty small.
If CDs still existed as a choice, at a cost no greater than at present, then I'd certainly be a lot more at ease with this idea.
Calm down, I'm aware it was analogy. Do me the courtesy of reading all of ym comment too and you'll find the point answered in greater detail. I was simply pointing out that the analogy was rather limited since RedHat wouldn't be a viable large company without support contracts and there would be no analogous situation for music.
The money has to come from somewhere, which means they must either have a rich family, or are working another job. If they're working another job, it means less time and energy to devote to music, so it suffers. And this is hardly an example of how music is going to be cheaply made available round the world. Yes, I could buy the music, but never having heard of the band, seen them in concert, seen them on TV, seen their CDs in a store, why would I? Face it, marketing plays an important part in getting music distributed and marketing requires money. Without it, you can be successful locally, but it'll be very difficult to go further.
It's not a matter of what they like doing; it's a matter of being able to function. If you're working and touring all year without a holiday, you'll be wrecked. Work will suffer, as will the music. And probably your relationships with other people. Bad idea.
If you want more than a dozen people to watch at any sort of decent quality, you'll need some impressive hosting gear. It's not something your local small time band is going to be able to do.
I think they're kept solvent because people like music and people like music from more than just their nearest city. The music industry was doing fine before the DMCA and the DMCa is a purely USA thing, so don't blame it for keeping the indu
You've completely missed my point. I want to be able to hear bands from all round the world, not just the nearest city. I"m sure musicians want to be heard al around the world. Your business model focusses purely on a small local market and quite frankly sucks for both the musician and the world.
Under your model, there would be no tours because there's going to be no-one to bankroll them. No-one is going to get beyond the local stage; Your comments show that you are fixated with keeping musicians bound to a single city.
Yet again, you completely fail to miss my point.
Your community is limited to people within a very short range. You are relying on a lot of people having WiFi and opening up their networks for you to access. Musicians relying on that would have trouble being heard more than a street away. My point was that WiFi is only any good if you ant your neighbour to be able to check out your music. It's useless for letting anyone outside your city know about you.
It's true for most cases. Particularly for bands with actual musicians.
Why this obsession with Holywood? You do realise they make movies, not music, right?
They don't have any problems with file sharing because no-one is buying their music anyway. Relatively speaking. Money for instruments has to come from somewhere. If they can't earn money from albums, then they have to have another job, which means less time and energy for music, a point which you consistently ignore.
44.1/16 PCM is what we have at the moment. We should be looking at steps upwards, rather thank taking steps backwards.