The difference between Mac and PC is like the difference between driving an automatic and a manual. Mac's are easy and cool to use, pc's give you some more power and are more difficult.
My secretary uses a macintosh. It's pretty neat. Every time she's asks me to fix it I laugh to myself a little. It is a Fischer Price PC.
If history was different, I might even prefer the apple guys to dominate the OS market. Well, it doesn't work that way.
Exactly this. We are indeed in the Commonwealth of Her Majesty. And in our policies (especially immigration) we might just as well be in the EU.
The right (bigots) down here seem to wish we were "EU south", when reality dictates that we must be "where to get coal and uranium" south-east asia.
Australia needs to drop it's eurocentric philosophic and review it's asian relations. Especially China.
As an Australian, I think this whole argument goes beyond Microsoft or any other GloboCorp.
We are facing a tumultuous election campaign over here. There's much venom between the parties vying for election.
This issue highlights a much over-looked aspect of Australian politics; do we take our values and principles from the EU? or from south-east asia?
Should Australia join the EU? or should we go down the ASEAN route?
They've been playing the first two movies to death on cable where I live. I've saw them at the cinema, loved it. Watched them on cable, ok. If it's on I'd flip over to it during a commercial break.
But they keep playing it again and again, I don't even hesitate flipping right past it now. Like a radio station destroys your favourite song by putting it on high rotation.
American critic Edmund Wilson, dismissed the entire trilogy in 1956 as "juvenile trash".
I read the trilogy several times between the ages of 10 and 14. I tried reading it again ten years later before the first movie came out, but I became bored with it and was side tracked by other novels.
As a child I thought it was the most thrilling read ever. I suppose our imaginations are more suited to fantasy as children. Everyone knows how imaginative children can be.
It's not "juvenile trash", but I understand his sentiment.
Not at all. I assert that SpaceShipOne has many design similarities to NASA's M2-F2. Looking at the profiles of each craft (which is why I linked to the picture), you can see how the general shape (at least) is very similar.
SpaceShipOne undeniably benefits from NASA research, if not for the prior art, than NASA's freely available research on space exploration.
NASA have always maintained that their research is for the benefit of all mankind. Here is where we see the benefits of their tax funded research, in commercial endeavors.
The question to ask is about NASA's place in the future. As the first (of hopefully many) endeavors against a governmental monopoly on space, one must wonder if this is the beginning of a trend. If so, how long before commercial interests take over NASA in R&D, budget and achievements?
To wit; could the first man on Mars be a private individual?
Pixar makes the movies, and Disney distributes them; they cofinance the films and split the profits.
I realise that this is splitting hairs, yet since they are cofinancing Pixar's films, Disney are technically producing them. I assert that Disney's role is to distribute, and they leave the production to the (currently) sympathetic and benign Pixar. (Refer to article).
Reading the article, it's clear that the Pixar folk have quite alot of respect for Disney, and as such would do their best during production to meet Disney's high standards.
My post suggested a rivalry between Pixar and Disney, which is yet to happen. But will.
Again, my apologies for posting this three times. As you probably know, slashdot has been down today. I tried to post this 3 times, but the server was down.
Argh! Go ahead and mod this post down as redundant, as I have posted this already. This really bothers me as out of ~60 comments I have been modded down only twice. Oh well it's just a SNAFU;p
Finding Nemo tops Lion King in box office
on
Welcome To Planet Pixar
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The Lion King was lauded for it's return to traditional hand-drawn animation techniques. In the past Disney had created some of the most stunning and timeless visual effects without the use of computers, and it's use of CGI was critised as they tentatively tried this new technology (most notably the flying carpet in Alladin). It seemed Disney was turning back to it's roots.
But they weren't. Instead, they turned 180 degrees, and their next movie would be 100% CGI.
Disney's early attempts at CGI belied the problems inherent in training their artists to drop the pencil and grab the mouse. The decision to hire Pixar Studios to take over their CGI efforts was made, and will go down in history as a Damn Good Move.
Toy Story was a groundbreaking film. Nothing like it had ever been tried before. Pixar were the pioneers of feature length 3d animated films. Toy Story set a precedent that would be surpassed by each subsequent film from Pixar Studios, and a precedent for others to aspire to.
Almost ten years since Toy Story, Pixar are now in direct competition with Disney. Disney's The Lion King, praised for it's hand-drawn animations, has been knocked off the box-office podium by Pixar's Finding Nemo, 100% computer-generated.
Both companies now make CGI films exclusively.
Finding Nemo tops Lion King in the box office
on
Welcome To Planet Pixar
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
The Lion King was lauded for it's return to traditional hand-drawn animation techniques. In the past Disney had created some of the most stunning and timeless visual effects without the use of computers, and it's use of CGI was critised as they tentatively tried this new technology (most notably the flying carpet in Alladin). It seemed Disney was turning back to it's roots.
But they weren't. Instead, they turned 180 degrees, and their next movie would be 100% CGI.
Disney's early attempts at CGI belied the problems inherent in training their artists to drop the pencil and grab the mouse. The decision to hire Pixar Studios to take over their CGI efforts was made, and will go down in history as a Damn Good Move.
Toy Story was a groundbreaking film. Nothing like it had ever been tried before. Pixar were the pioneers of feature length 3d animated films. Toy Story set a precedent that would be surpassed by each subsequent film from Pixar Studios, and a precedent for others to aspire to.
Almost ten years since Toy Story, Pixar are now in direct competition with Disney. Disney's The Lion King, praised for it's hand-drawn animations, has been knocked off the box-office podium by Pixar's Finding Nemo, 100% computer-generated.
Both companies now make CGI films exclusively.
Finding Nemo tops Lion King in the box office.
on
Welcome To Planet Pixar
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The Lion King has been toppled by Finding Nemo as the highest grossing
animation ever. Links go to box office statistics.
The Lion King was lauded for it's return to traditional hand-drawn animation techniques. In the past
Disney has created some of the most stunning and timeless visual effects without the use of
computers, and it's use of CGI was critised as they tentatively tried this new technology (most
notably the flying carpet in Alladin). It seemed Disney was turning back to it's roots.
But they weren't. Instead, they turned 180 degrees, and their next movie would be 100%
CGI.
Disney's early attempts at CGI belied the problems inherent in training their artists to
drop the pencil and grab the mouse. The decision to hire Pixar Studios to take over their CGI
efforts was made, and will go down in history as a Damn Good Move.
Toy Story was a groundbreaking film. Nothing like it had ever been tried before. Pixar were the
pioneers of feature length 3d animated films. Toy Story set a precedent that would be surpassed by
each subsequent film from Pixar Studios, and a precedent for others to aspire to.
Almost ten years since Toy Story, Pixar are now in direct competition with Disney. Disney's The Lion
King, praised for it's hand-drawn animations, has been knocked off the box-office podium by Pixar's
Finding Nemo, 100% computer-generated.
It's a shame the parent didn't appear to read the wikipedia entry they posted, otherwise they would have reached the same conclusion.
From this article linked to in the wikipedia entry;
In most states, a successful entrapment defense requires the defendant to prove three things:
The idea of committing the crime came from law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant.
The law enforcement officers induced the person to commit the crime. Courts have traditionally maintained a high burden of proof for inducement. Simply affording the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime does not constitute inducement. For inducement to be proved, officers must have used coercive or persuasive tactics.
The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so. If an undercover cop bought cocaine from a person carrying a kilogram of the drug, the seller could not plead entrapment, even if coercion were involved in the sale, since his intent to sell was clear. Most courts also allow a defendant's predisposition to be demonstrated through prior conduct or reputation.
These definitions are a little ambiguous, as they don't explicitly state that only law enforcement is accountable for entrapment. Example: if I make a citizen's arrest, after coercing someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed, am I accountable for entrapment? I'm not sure on this one... like I said, there's a little ambiguity in the definitions I read.
Having said that, the RIAA have taken upon themselves the role of P2P vigilantes. Remember the story of the RIAA rent-a-goons going about handing out cease and desist notices at garage sales and street markets? If they wish to take an active role in law enforcement, they should be accountable as such.
Even if the RIAA were accountable for entrapment, "The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so." would put them well in the clear. If they supplied you with the P2P software and suggested that it could be used to download copyrighted material for free, gratuitously enticing you to steal, then they would be in trouble. Somehow I can't see them doing that...
In conclusion, a record company could flood the P2P networks with their copyrighted material, sue the hell out of everyone with government-funded lawsuits, walk away with a bucket of cash, and have no problems in doing so.
Something's not right with that. I would love to be corrected on this.
They can enter an address and get a picture of your house. Okay, so what.
Throw in some image-recognition software and some serious hardware, and it's possible to find your address using a picture of your house.
Now put that power in the hands of the public. You have a flamewar with an internet troll. Troll goes to your blog, gets the picture of your kitten which happens to show enough of your house for the system to pick out the unique characteristics. Troll is now on their way to your house.
I'll admit it; that's a fair stretch of the imagination. Highly unlikely, but if this could possibly be bad in any way, I have faith that some idiots will figure out how.
Something just occurred to me; could a publisher accidentally leak (purposely distribute) their copyrighted material on a P2P network and wait for people to entrap themselves by downloading it?... I don't usually do cliches but here goes...
1. 'Accidentally' leak your music.
2. Sue everyone who downloads it. The government pays for the lawsuits.
3. Profit!
If the porno industry no longer has to expend their own money or effort to crack down on copyright violators, don't you think they'd start?
If this legislation goes through, you can expect pornographers to start the lawsuits with a vengeance. Right now, however, the best thing they can do is lie low and let the RIAA do all the lobbying.
Pornography is political dynamite. Let's say the lobbying effort for the PIRATE act was spearheaded by an organisation representing pornographers, rather than the RIAA. That would be counter-productive, ie; 'Our musicians deserve to get paid' appeals to a wider audience than 'Our porn-stars deserve to be paid'.
On a side note: music and movies can cost millions to make, whereas porn can be made relatively cheaply. Pornographers don't go out of their way to track down pirates because, as the article states, the lawsuits run into hundreds of thousands. With that kind of money they could make ten more films, still make a huge profit, and not have to deal with soul-less parasites (lawyers).
Could a total stranger walk out of your business with thousands of dollars in merchandise without your knowing? Even worse, could they manipulate you into helping them each step along the way?
Offtopic...
But this occurred in the last 24 hours.
I live with some close friends in a 'share-house'. We all have common interests and we enjoy a fair deal of household harmony.
Recently, I did a big favour for a friend by letting him store some of his belongings at my house while he moved.
All of this was pretty normal until last night. Now, one of my room-mates gave me a celeron 750 box to mess around with. I had to throw in some parts myself, but I got it going. Then he asked for it back so he could give it to his grandma (she's still running a pentium 150!).
This morning I woke up to loud cursing coming from the living room. My friend who's storing his stuff here, came in during the middle of the night, unscrewed the case and took the cd-rom(!). Ignoring the dvd, vcr, pentium 4 and other valuables in the living room, only the cd-rom from the box my room-mate was working on was gone.
My room-mate intended to deliver the PC to his grandma today, and he was so annoyed, he promised to 'stab the bastard in the face'. What puzzles me, however, is how he showed such disrespect for other peoples' property, while we happen to be storing his 21" monitor (amoungst other valuables) for him. Doesn't make much sense? We suspect drugs might be involved.
William Gibson's brilliant novel 'Neuromancer'. Or Tron for that matter. Gibson coined the term 'Matrix' to describe his 3d-cyberspace fantasy, where you kind of plug your brain directly into the network so you can 'see' files and programs etc.
Alot of science fiction is more visionary than you may think. For example Arthur C. Clarke, author of '2001', put the concept of the satellite in a short story in the 1940s, and now he's credited with being the first to suggest the possibility.
So true. My AGP card alone costs as much as an Xbox. And I don't mind paying for that, because the graphics on my PC totally cream Xbox graphics on the same games.
Excepting games ported from the xbox, which always have terrible low-res textures, but run at much crisper resolutions anyhow.
Those looking for a premium gaming experience will always choose a PC.
But I can't justify travelling all the way from Australia to see this. Are there any Aussies out there interested in seeing something like this at home?
Cue misty childhood memories; camera goes all wavy as I gaze skyward, stroking my beard with a wistful sigh...
My dad was given a Galaxian machine to fix, one of the really nice tabletop ones: with the thick glass top three times the size of the display (plenty of room for your drink and fries:). The one-axis joystick secreted horizontally under the shelf that made that satisfying click you only get from a micro-switch (like those old clicky IBM keyboards, you know damn well when you hit a key). Micro-switches were in the two buttons as well, which were also under the shelf. That sounds awkward, but resting the base of your palm facing upward against the edge of the shelf you could hammer those buttons pretty fast. The screen was taller than it was wide, which was pretty common back then, and would simply flip to face the other side for two-player. Yeah, you had to take turns
Dad told the guy that the machine was completely irrepairable, but he'd take it off his hands and save him a trip to the dump (the guy had no clue). So the machine ended up in my bedroom, and, needless to say, Dad was my hero:). I was the only kid in my entire suburb (afaik) to be priveleged enough to have a real arcade machine in my own home, while other kids were playing with their Atari 2600s. Of course, I soon became the undefeated champion of Galaxian. I would seek out the game in arcades to make sure my initials stayed in the high-score list. On one memorable occasion, finally losing my last life after playing for what seemed like hours and hours, I was surprised by applause, as I was oblivious to a small crowd gathering around me. What? Yes, hard to imagine these days, but this was in the hey-day of arcade machines
After Galaxian became passe, it served it's purpose as a very stylish desk and conversation piece. Even then, I entertained thoughts of modifying it. Particularly, I wanted to get at that indestructible joystick so I could use it with my c64 (commodore's flimsy plastic joysticks combined with the common 'waggle the joystick as fast as you can' gameplay led to ALOT of broken sticks)
I was too young to go monkeying around with the electronics myself, so my Dad, with his master's degree in electrical engineering, would implement alot of my ideas for me. We did alot of projects together, like a solar-powered remote-control car (for a school project), a guitar amp (I was a prodigious guitarist), kits from Dick Smith etcetera... What to do with the Galaxian tabletop was shaping up to be our biggest project ever, when sadly my Dad passed away, leaving my brothers and I as orphans. Even worse, later that year a house-fire destroyed the Galaxian tabletop (and everything else) and it was lost forever.
For people like me, events like Phillyclassic 5 are extremely important. Preserving arcade-game heritage means more than just keeping the roms and emulating them, it's about the whole package. I've played Galaxian on Mame, and it's good, but I would honestly prefer to play a cutting-edge FPS (C'mon, I'm being nostalgic, not stupid!). To play the same tabletop version I had however... well, that would be something. My Dad would be proud.
Here is a picture of a 'cocktail' Galaxian. Mine looked different to this, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between Mac and PC is like the difference between driving an automatic and a manual. Mac's are easy and cool to use, pc's give you some more power and are more difficult.
My secretary uses a macintosh. It's pretty neat. Every time she's asks me to fix it I laugh to myself a little. It is a Fischer Price PC.
If history was different, I might even prefer the apple guys to dominate the OS market. Well, it doesn't work that way.
Exactly this. We are indeed in the Commonwealth of Her Majesty. And in our policies (especially immigration) we might just as well be in the EU. The right (bigots) down here seem to wish we were "EU south", when reality dictates that we must be "where to get coal and uranium" south-east asia. Australia needs to drop it's eurocentric philosophic and review it's asian relations. Especially China.
As an Australian, I think this whole argument goes beyond Microsoft or any other GloboCorp. We are facing a tumultuous election campaign over here. There's much venom between the parties vying for election. This issue highlights a much over-looked aspect of Australian politics; do we take our values and principles from the EU? or from south-east asia? Should Australia join the EU? or should we go down the ASEAN route?
Whoa! I just read that first review of star wars there, and you sure are right.
I'll take this out of context;
Barren the screenplay is of thought.
HA!
And they call him "George Lukas".
My google-fu revealed these old Canadian reviews.
They've been playing the first two movies to death on cable where I live. I've saw them at the cinema, loved it. Watched them on cable, ok. If it's on I'd flip over to it during a commercial break.
But they keep playing it again and again, I don't even hesitate flipping right past it now. Like a radio station destroys your favourite song by putting it on high rotation.
American critic Edmund Wilson, dismissed the entire trilogy in 1956 as "juvenile trash".
I read the trilogy several times between the ages of 10 and 14. I tried reading it again ten years later before the first movie came out, but I became bored with it and was side tracked by other novels.
As a child I thought it was the most thrilling read ever. I suppose our imaginations are more suited to fantasy as children. Everyone knows how imaginative children can be.
It's not "juvenile trash", but I understand his sentiment.
Not at all. I assert that SpaceShipOne has many design similarities to NASA's M2-F2. Looking at the profiles of each craft (which is why I linked to the picture), you can see how the general shape (at least) is very similar.
SpaceShipOne undeniably benefits from NASA research, if not for the prior art, than NASA's freely available research on space exploration.
Clearly this is a great success in the commercial space movement.
Let me begin by saying that SpaceShipOne is a development on clearly establablished NASA research, as NASA have demostrated a prototype which displays the same functionality.
NASA have always maintained that their research is for the benefit of all mankind. Here is where we see the benefits of their tax funded research, in commercial endeavors.
The question to ask is about NASA's place in the future. As the first (of hopefully many) endeavors against a governmental monopoly on space, one must wonder if this is the beginning of a trend. If so, how long before commercial interests take over NASA in R&D, budget and achievements?
To wit; could the first man on Mars be a private individual?
Thank you for correcting my grammer.
From the Article:
Pixar makes the movies, and Disney distributes them; they cofinance the films and split the profits.
I realise that this is splitting hairs, yet since they are cofinancing Pixar's films, Disney are technically producing them. I assert that Disney's role is to distribute, and they leave the production to the (currently) sympathetic and benign Pixar. (Refer to article).
Reading the article, it's clear that the Pixar folk have quite alot of respect for Disney, and as such would do their best during production to meet Disney's high standards.
My post suggested a rivalry between Pixar and Disney, which is yet to happen. But will.
Again, my apologies for posting this three times. As you probably know, slashdot has been down today. I tried to post this 3 times, but the server was down.
;p
Argh! Go ahead and mod this post down as redundant, as I have posted this already. This really bothers me as out of ~60 comments I have been modded down only twice. Oh well it's just a SNAFU
The Lion King has been toppled by Finding Nemo as the highest grossing animation ever.
The Lion King was lauded for it's return to traditional hand-drawn animation techniques. In the past Disney had created some of the most stunning and timeless visual effects without the use of computers, and it's use of CGI was critised as they tentatively tried this new technology (most notably the flying carpet in Alladin). It seemed Disney was turning back to it's roots.
But they weren't. Instead, they turned 180 degrees, and their next movie would be 100% CGI.
Disney's early attempts at CGI belied the problems inherent in training their artists to drop the pencil and grab the mouse. The decision to hire Pixar Studios to take over their CGI efforts was made, and will go down in history as a Damn Good Move.
Toy Story was a groundbreaking film. Nothing like it had ever been tried before. Pixar were the pioneers of feature length 3d animated films. Toy Story set a precedent that would be surpassed by each subsequent film from Pixar Studios, and a precedent for others to aspire to.
Almost ten years since Toy Story, Pixar are now in direct competition with Disney. Disney's The Lion King, praised for it's hand-drawn animations, has been knocked off the box-office podium by Pixar's Finding Nemo, 100% computer-generated.
Both companies now make CGI films exclusively.
The Lion King has been toppled by Finding Nemo as the highest grossing animation ever.
The Lion King was lauded for it's return to traditional hand-drawn animation techniques. In the past Disney had created some of the most stunning and timeless visual effects without the use of computers, and it's use of CGI was critised as they tentatively tried this new technology (most notably the flying carpet in Alladin). It seemed Disney was turning back to it's roots.
But they weren't. Instead, they turned 180 degrees, and their next movie would be 100% CGI.
Disney's early attempts at CGI belied the problems inherent in training their artists to drop the pencil and grab the mouse. The decision to hire Pixar Studios to take over their CGI efforts was made, and will go down in history as a Damn Good Move.
Toy Story was a groundbreaking film. Nothing like it had ever been tried before. Pixar were the pioneers of feature length 3d animated films. Toy Story set a precedent that would be surpassed by each subsequent film from Pixar Studios, and a precedent for others to aspire to.
Almost ten years since Toy Story, Pixar are now in direct competition with Disney. Disney's The Lion King, praised for it's hand-drawn animations, has been knocked off the box-office podium by Pixar's Finding Nemo, 100% computer-generated.
Both companies now make CGI films exclusively.
The Lion King has been toppled by Finding Nemo as the highest grossing animation ever. Links go to box office statistics.
The Lion King was lauded for it's return to traditional hand-drawn animation techniques. In the past Disney has created some of the most stunning and timeless visual effects without the use of computers, and it's use of CGI was critised as they tentatively tried this new technology (most notably the flying carpet in Alladin). It seemed Disney was turning back to it's roots.
But they weren't. Instead, they turned 180 degrees, and their next movie would be 100% CGI.
Disney's early attempts at CGI belied the problems inherent in training their artists to drop the pencil and grab the mouse. The decision to hire Pixar Studios to take over their CGI efforts was made, and will go down in history as a Damn Good Move.
Toy Story was a groundbreaking film. Nothing like it had ever been tried before. Pixar were the pioneers of feature length 3d animated films. Toy Story set a precedent that would be surpassed by each subsequent film from Pixar Studios, and a precedent for others to aspire to.
Almost ten years since Toy Story, Pixar are now in direct competition with Disney. Disney's The Lion King, praised for it's hand-drawn animations, has been knocked off the box-office podium by Pixar's Finding Nemo, 100% computer-generated.
Both companies now make CGI films exclusively.
From this article linked to in the wikipedia entry;
In most states, a successful entrapment defense requires the defendant to prove three things:
These definitions are a little ambiguous, as they don't explicitly state that only law enforcement is accountable for entrapment. Example: if I make a citizen's arrest, after coercing someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed, am I accountable for entrapment? I'm not sure on this one... like I said, there's a little ambiguity in the definitions I read.
Having said that, the RIAA have taken upon themselves the role of P2P vigilantes. Remember the story of the RIAA rent-a-goons going about handing out cease and desist notices at garage sales and street markets? If they wish to take an active role in law enforcement, they should be accountable as such.
Even if the RIAA were accountable for entrapment, "The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so." would put them well in the clear. If they supplied you with the P2P software and suggested that it could be used to download copyrighted material for free, gratuitously enticing you to steal, then they would be in trouble. Somehow I can't see them doing that...
In conclusion, a record company could flood the P2P networks with their copyrighted material, sue the hell out of everyone with government-funded lawsuits, walk away with a bucket of cash, and have no problems in doing so.
Something's not right with that. I would love to be corrected on this.
They can enter an address and get a picture of your house. Okay, so what.
Throw in some image-recognition software and some serious hardware, and it's possible to find your address using a picture of your house.
Now put that power in the hands of the public. You have a flamewar with an internet troll. Troll goes to your blog, gets the picture of your kitten which happens to show enough of your house for the system to pick out the unique characteristics. Troll is now on their way to your house.
I'll admit it; that's a fair stretch of the imagination. Highly unlikely, but if this could possibly be bad in any way, I have faith that some idiots will figure out how.
Something just occurred to me; could a publisher accidentally leak (purposely distribute) their copyrighted material on a P2P network and wait for people to entrap themselves by downloading it? ... I don't usually do cliches but here goes ...
1. 'Accidentally' leak your music.
2. Sue everyone who downloads it. The government pays for the lawsuits.
3. Profit!
If the porno industry no longer has to expend their own money or effort to crack down on copyright violators, don't you think they'd start?
If this legislation goes through, you can expect pornographers to start the lawsuits with a vengeance. Right now, however, the best thing they can do is lie low and let the RIAA do all the lobbying.
Pornography is political dynamite. Let's say the lobbying effort for the PIRATE act was spearheaded by an organisation representing pornographers, rather than the RIAA. That would be counter-productive, ie; 'Our musicians deserve to get paid' appeals to a wider audience than 'Our porn-stars deserve to be paid'.
On a side note: music and movies can cost millions to make, whereas porn can be made relatively cheaply. Pornographers don't go out of their way to track down pirates because, as the article states, the lawsuits run into hundreds of thousands. With that kind of money they could make ten more films, still make a huge profit, and not have to deal with soul-less parasites (lawyers).
Could a total stranger walk out of your business with thousands of dollars in merchandise without your knowing? Even worse, could they manipulate you into helping them each step along the way?
/offtopic
Offtopic...
But this occurred in the last 24 hours.
I live with some close friends in a 'share-house'. We all have common interests and we enjoy a fair deal of household harmony.
Recently, I did a big favour for a friend by letting him store some of his belongings at my house while he moved.
All of this was pretty normal until last night. Now, one of my room-mates gave me a celeron 750 box to mess around with. I had to throw in some parts myself, but I got it going. Then he asked for it back so he could give it to his grandma (she's still running a pentium 150!).
This morning I woke up to loud cursing coming from the living room. My friend who's storing his stuff here, came in during the middle of the night, unscrewed the case and took the cd-rom(!). Ignoring the dvd, vcr, pentium 4 and other valuables in the living room, only the cd-rom from the box my room-mate was working on was gone.
My room-mate intended to deliver the PC to his grandma today, and he was so annoyed, he promised to 'stab the bastard in the face'. What puzzles me, however, is how he showed such disrespect for other peoples' property, while we happen to be storing his 21" monitor (amoungst other valuables) for him. Doesn't make much sense? We suspect drugs might be involved.
I'm sure you meant 'All your patent are belong to USA'
Your patent laws are a train wreck.
Sincerly,
The rest of the world.
Thank you for outsourcing my debugging job to Germany.
William Gibson's brilliant novel 'Neuromancer'. Or Tron for that matter. Gibson coined the term 'Matrix' to describe his 3d-cyberspace fantasy, where you kind of plug your brain directly into the network so you can 'see' files and programs etc.
Alot of science fiction is more visionary than you may think. For example Arthur C. Clarke, author of '2001', put the concept of the satellite in a short story in the 1940s, and now he's credited with being the first to suggest the possibility.
So true. My AGP card alone costs as much as an Xbox. And I don't mind paying for that, because the graphics on my PC totally cream Xbox graphics on the same games.
Excepting games ported from the xbox, which always have terrible low-res textures, but run at much crisper resolutions anyhow.
Those looking for a premium gaming experience will always choose a PC.
But I can't justify travelling all the way from Australia to see this. Are there any Aussies out there interested in seeing something like this at home?
:). The one-axis joystick secreted horizontally under the shelf that made that satisfying click you only get from a micro-switch (like those old clicky IBM keyboards, you know damn well when you hit a key). Micro-switches were in the two buttons as well, which were also under the shelf. That sounds awkward, but resting the base of your palm facing upward against the edge of the shelf you could hammer those buttons pretty fast. The screen was taller than it was wide, which was pretty common back then, and would simply flip to face the other side for two-player. Yeah, you had to take turns
:). I was the only kid in my entire suburb (afaik) to be priveleged enough to have a real arcade machine in my own home, while other kids were playing with their Atari 2600s. Of course, I soon became the undefeated champion of Galaxian. I would seek out the game in arcades to make sure my initials stayed in the high-score list. On one memorable occasion, finally losing my last life after playing for what seemed like hours and hours, I was surprised by applause, as I was oblivious to a small crowd gathering around me. What? Yes, hard to imagine these days, but this was in the hey-day of arcade machines
Cue misty childhood memories; camera goes all wavy as I gaze skyward, stroking my beard with a wistful sigh...
My dad was given a Galaxian machine to fix, one of the really nice tabletop ones: with the thick glass top three times the size of the display (plenty of room for your drink and fries
Dad told the guy that the machine was completely irrepairable, but he'd take it off his hands and save him a trip to the dump (the guy had no clue). So the machine ended up in my bedroom, and, needless to say, Dad was my hero
After Galaxian became passe, it served it's purpose as a very stylish desk and conversation piece. Even then, I entertained thoughts of modifying it. Particularly, I wanted to get at that indestructible joystick so I could use it with my c64 (commodore's flimsy plastic joysticks combined with the common 'waggle the joystick as fast as you can' gameplay led to ALOT of broken sticks)
I was too young to go monkeying around with the electronics myself, so my Dad, with his master's degree in electrical engineering, would implement alot of my ideas for me. We did alot of projects together, like a solar-powered remote-control car (for a school project), a guitar amp (I was a prodigious guitarist), kits from Dick Smith etcetera... What to do with the Galaxian tabletop was shaping up to be our biggest project ever, when sadly my Dad passed away, leaving my brothers and I as orphans. Even worse, later that year a house-fire destroyed the Galaxian tabletop (and everything else) and it was lost forever.
For people like me, events like Phillyclassic 5 are extremely important. Preserving arcade-game heritage means more than just keeping the roms and emulating them, it's about the whole package. I've played Galaxian on Mame, and it's good, but I would honestly prefer to play a cutting-edge FPS (C'mon, I'm being nostalgic, not stupid!). To play the same tabletop version I had however... well, that would be something. My Dad would be proud.
Here is a picture of a 'cocktail' Galaxian. Mine looked different to this, though.