The whole point of Cable TV when it was introduced is to offer people a scheme whereby they payed to NOT see commercials. Then execs realized they could make more money by forcing you to watch commercials in addition to paying for TV.
Same thing with movies. For a while, the justification of higher movie ticket prices was the fact that you didn't have to see commercials before the movie. Now they brought that back, so you are once again paying for both content and commercials (typically I will be 10-15 minutes late to a movie so I don't have to sit through commercials.)
Even websites are getting increasingly annoying. A web browser without a popup ad blocker is almost useless. Half the websites you go to, you have to register to view any content, so the company can spam your inbox with product ads. God forbid a person read any content without a million ads in their face.
Now even TiVo has sadly succum to what seems to be a very bad trend in the US. TiVo was one of the few companies that seemed to understand that people DON'T want to constantly be smothered by rediculus ads. One of the few companies using a technology to give power back to the people. But it looks like it wasn't meant to last. Time to kiss that all goodby, and say hello to more pop up ads and spam.
And execs wonder why people do things like pirate TV shows and movies? When you treat your customers like little babies, guess what? Eventually people get pissed off, and will go out of their way to find an alternative system that works for them. Even if it's illegal.
Metroid Prime is the first Metroid game where I could sense anything like an appreciable storyline.
Um, what Metroid games have you been playing? The book for the first one is huge, going into to how Metroids were created, the space pirates, etc. And I thought it was a pretty cool plot twist how in the end, Samus turns out to be a girl. The second Metroid (Gameboy) had the whole metroid-mutation thing, and the baby metroid at the end that thinks Samus is it's mother. Then in the 3rd Metroid for Super Nintendo you have the baby metroid growing up and ultimately saving Samus' life.
Just because a game lacks flashy FMV cut scenes doesn't mean it doesn't have a story.
What I would like to see is more anime movie-like gameplay: combining traditional hand-drawn side scrolling with an appropriate amount of 3D reorientation and cut scenes to give the 2D depth and imagination.
I remember when I first saw Street Fighter 3, how impressed I was with the animation. Is it that companies really don't know how to draw that kind of art any more?
I think in a way, 3D was an excuse not to spend so much time with drawn art, which takes time and is more difficult to create then 3D models (ironically, with today's tools.)
Is not the entire academic process an asymptotic approach to the truth?
Not necessarily. I've studied the history of science, and I've discovered that often times, people will often perpetually gravitate towards their own beliefs and preconceptions until someone steps in and breaks the link (ex: Einstein, Newton, etc.) by showing them something so radically different, that it changes their perceptions and the way they view the world.
A very good example is in orbital mechanics and the idea people had for a LONG time that the Earth was the center of the universe and that all the planets must move in circular orbits, since the circle was thought to be the perfect geometrical shape. These ideas were so powerful in society at that time (pushed mainly by the Church), that when more accurate observations were recorded of the movements of planets in the solar system (retrograde of Venus, etc.), people had a horrendous time making sense of what they observed. A Greek astronomer named Ptolemy devised all these obscure geometrical structures (circles rotating around circles while shifting along another line- called epicycles) to try to fit the observed data to the established idea that planets must move in circles. In other words, instead of simply looking at the data and coming up with a conclusion that makes sense, people did everything possible to keep stable their established and accepted view of reality.
When you read this stuff, you have to laugh, because it seems so obvious what we now know to be the truth. But for most fundamental truths, people will often violently oppose the idea when it's introduced. The reason is because people REALLY want the world to work the way they believe it to work right now. They compose their beliefs, not realizing that the beliefs themselves stop them from even considering any idea that might challenge or disrupt the belief.
Einstein once said that "We can't solve problems of the world by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." So yes, it often times takes a genious to step and formulate a powerful new idea which throws people for a loop for a while until they "get it" and the idea becomes self evident. Especially when the established viewpoint in society is very strong. But even then, it might take years or even decades before society relents and the opinion of the average person changes to match the truth (Example: no less then three people before Copernicus had the idea that the Earth rotated around the Sun, before it was finally established as fact. Which amounts to maybe hundreds of years of people denying the truth until they had some sense beaten into them!)
Of course similar errors could exist with a conventional encyclopedia - but I would be interested in refutations of his point 3.
A normal encyclopedia has trained researchers working day and night to gathering research, compose articles with the best information, and check and recheck until the articles are perfect.
Wikipedia has 100000000 monkeys and maybe 100 smart people composing articles.
100 out of 100000000. And you actually think that the 100 are going to be discovered by the people who have to wade through 100000100 contributions and figure out which are the best?
This is his point. Trying to find the one good contributer with the correct factual information amist zillions of monkeys posting because they are bored is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
The article makes a very good point. With Open Source, should it be "power to the people" or "power to the smart people"? While it may be altruistic to support the former, the reality is that just because someone makes a contribution, it doesn't mean the contribution is smart or useful. Even if a contribuiton is smart, it has to be smart in the view of the entire community before it gets incorportated.
Which is the major drawback of open source. How do you make sure the cream rises to the top in a society where you have a zillion contributions per day? Blog after blog on the net are filled with useless drivel from people of little brain, trying pathetically to make their little "mark" on the net. Some of these people have no clue how to write, yet the power exists for them to do so.
Which brings up another interesting discussion. We are moving more and more towards a society where those that are not experts have the same voice and can make the same impact on people as those that ARE experts. The net doesn't discriminate the quality of users before they are allowed to post.
The new powerful people are not the experts, not the regular contributers, but the people who decide which is which.
And this is what most people in this world do not get. You, me, we read slashdot- we are informed. The average person does not inform themselves, which is why we get statements like "The US is always good" and "The terrorists are always bad". People who makes such statements are completely clueless- since there are a million answers to the contrary, if only a person would do a simple net search and read them.
The problem is never terrorism. The problem is people not getting informed, not questioning their own beliefs, sitting at home on their couch with a beer and their hand and beliving that the world is flat. You can't even talk to a person like that, because they are only going to speak to you from their limited base. Once people understand that EVERY person's opinions and beliefs have some basis in fact, they no longer can use petty disagreements to divide people.
Education is how you combat terrorism, not with weapons.
Winamp has the features, but iTunes has the interface. Winamp always felt like a "hack" app: throw everything in a can and maybe what you get out of it is your music. It worked because it does everything and there weren't any good alternatives. What iTunes did was focus on the essential features and provided a killer UI with which to work with them.
With most people, UI and "ease of use" usually beats features. The Slashdot crowd is the exception, not the rule.
This brings up a good point. Security is not equivalent to market share, I.E. just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's more or less secure. If something was created with security flaws, then the flaws exist regardless if the product is popular or not. It's just that they are MORE VISABLE with a popular product, because more people are using the product (more discovery time for flaws), and the flaws are discussed to a greater extent because the product is popular. Nobody is going to care about the flaws of an unpopular product.
Something to be learned from all of this? Fix your flaws before you ship, and be ready for a time when your product is popular. Because if you think small and assume that your flaws won't be noticed enough for it to make a difference to your sales, you might discover with alarm that one day people really DO like your product, and then you are screwed trying to patch all the flaws after the fact.
Because they have to specify some constraints, otherwise the contest would be too easy.
The idea is to create a vehicle that can provide consistant access to space, not to make something that has to be thrown away. The Shuttle is due to retire in 2010, so obviously we are going to need something to replace it by then.
A low altitude orbit experiences drag due to Earth's atmosphere, so it's important to specify how many orbits, because that will dictate the amount of station-keeping thrust (= fuel) required to maintain the orbit.
Also, for a circular orbit, the velocity is directly proportional to the distance from the Earth (see two-body problem in orbital mechanics), so the previous poster is correct in saying that if you achieve some velocity associated with an orbit, you achieve that orbit.
I'm not convinced yet apple is going to get Spotlight right, i.e. truely revolutionary. It has potential (smart Finder folders is on the right path) but at the moment, it seems they are more interested in simply trying to duplicate Quicksilver/Launchbar technology, which is the wrong way to do this.
I'm tired of apple ripping off ideas from developers without (A) Giving them credit or (B) developing something equivalent so the new as at least as feature-full as the old. Based on apple's history, the first version of Spotlight will likely be a horribly dumbed down version of Launchbar in terms of tech, since apple is obsessed with "ease of use": i.e. a three year old has to be able to work it.
Rant aside, there are a few key pieces I think apple is missing:
(1) User-created metadata. I should be able to tag anything I want with any metadata I want so the organization system follows ME and MY preferences, instead of the system determining it for me. Apple should be thinking about taking the insanely wonderful metadata system they created in iTunes and applying that to the finder. It is essential you be able to tag metadata in, because you don't always access the same objects for the same purposes.
(2) Flexible file system. This is a concept I've developed which basically says that the file system should be dynamic and adaptable to match the thought flow of the user (only possible with a good metadata file system). If you've ever seen this app on the PC, think: "The Brain". What that means is that if apple does #(2) right, it should be easy as hell to tag things, and then basically I can create relationships which let me "flow" through my files by navigating CONCEPTS instead of folder heirarchy. A good app that does this is Devonthink. Devonthink will grab the contents out of your files, and when you do a search, you can not only see your search term but "related" search terms. Click on a new search term and you get a new listing. So as you come up with ideas about what you want to do, you can easily and naturally branch off into other parts of your file system. This methodology models the way the human brain actually works- thinking in concepts and spacial organization, rather then structure. (The "flexible" comes because the system takes your tags and adapts the search around them, allowing you to change how the "flow" works, depending upon what topics are most important to you.)
(3) The next level after metadata search is a new way of visually interpreting the metadata and relationships between. Which means a NEW FINDER. I can't believe Steve actually threw this comment out after demoing Spotlight: "With this, you probably won't even need to use the finder any more." Well then why even have the Finder at all, Steve?! There IS a reason for the finder, which is why it's stayed around all these years, and that is that people think SPACIALLY. People are creatures of habit, and one way we remember where things are is if we know where to look for it and it's always in the same place. Which means there needs to be a visual grounding to the above dynamic files system, to give people a sure footing to all of this. I'm talking about things like a window that always stays in the same spot and always performs the same task, like showing you what new files have been added to the system, or actively updating your list of word documents wherever they are. Right now in the finder, a window is a window is a window. That shouldn't be. If a search is applied to a window, then that window isn't just showing you files, it's performing an active function. The finder needs to evolve to take on the new roles and responsiblities it should have in the context of a metadata files system. Spotlight should replace the finder: the two should work together seamlessly.
The good news is that Spotlight is built into the system, so even if apple screws up the implimentation (likely), the next generation of 3rd party apps will hopefully be able to fill in the gaps.
Frankly, I'm pissed about this. id made a HUGE deal out of the fact that you would not need the latest hardware on the PC side to run D3 acceptably. Reviews came out, and PC people marveled over the fact that id was true to their word. D3 plays pretty well on most PCs with decent processors and graphics cards.
Now that the mac version comes out, and we all suddenly need a G5 to play it. That's a bunch of crap. Either ID screwed up the mac version, or what we've cringed over so long is finally comming to pass: top gaming companies are abandoning their resources for the mac. When Quake 3 and Warcraft 3 came out of the mac, I thought things MIGHT turn around. But if you need a G5 for the D3 mac version, it's hardly going to sell at all.
This is not good news. Oh well. Time to buy a cheap PC for games. I'm sick of mac ports working at half the speed of the PC version.
"GeforceFX5200 isn't top of the line by any means, but it's also not quite the trash some make it out to be."
Yes it is. It's about 5 to 6 times slower then then the top GPUs, which is what the typical gamer is looking to put in their machine. Thus it makes apple look horrendously backward to the people they are trying to impress: gamers. You think a gamer isn't going to know how pathetically old and sad the FX 5200 is? Maybe YOU don't care, because you don't have such demanding requirements. But the typical gamer DOES.
"The PowerMac can be configured with a GeForce 6800 or Radeon 9800. Again, not exactly trash."
And why exactly should any gamer go out and spend a crapload of money to add a GPU that apple should have BUILT INTO THE COMPUTER FROM DAY ONE?
"But "Apple hardware is just not fit for gaming" is a little silly."
Apple does not take gamers seriously because they don't understand the kind of hardware a gamer is expecting. Most mac users forgive apple for making their machines underpowered. We rationalize it and buy the machine anyway. But a gamer is NOT going to be that forgiving. Not in the least.
Apple needs to take gamers and their hardware requirements seriously.
Gamers frequently laugh at the mac, not because of the lack of games, but because of the the apparent apple stigmata AGAINST games. Gamers need a proper gaming machine, or they are not going to be happy. Look at the facts:
1) To get a mac with a decent graphics card built in, you need to pay $2500+ for a top-of-the-line G5. Apple computers typically ship with GPUs that are two to three generations behind the currently shipping top grade GPU. This is embarrassing for a company that seems to what to hold on to an unrealistic idea that their computers are cutting edge. Real gamers know better.
2) Apple computers typically ship with a less then average amount of RAM installed. Another embarrassment, this time even worse, because RAM is so cheap. These kinds of things make apple look bad to gamers, because they show apple is only interested in the bottom-feeder who has no clue how much RAM he/she realistically needs.
3) Apple's mouse and keyboard are of poor design. The average gamer needs lots of keys and lots of buttons. Once again, apple targets the bottom-feeder who has no clue. Gamers notice these types of details.
4) Apple does nothing to give gamers the little details they need which convince them they have a gaming machine. Like ALL ports in the front of the computer. Like pre-installed sound cards. Like included speakers that don't suck. Like good games which come with the computer. Etc.
So, for a hardcore gamer to buy a mac, they would typically have to do at least three things before they even install a single game: upgrade the graphics card, upgrade the RAM, and change the keyboard/mouse. All of this jacks up the price to unacceptable levels, especially since a gaming PC with all of the above typically runs about $1500.
Once gamers have exactly what they need (hardware-wise) from the moment they buy a mac, without spending a crapload on upgrading where apple has skimped on them, then maybe they'll consider the mac a serious gaming machine. But it's going to take apple changing their apparent viewpoint that all mac users are basically grandma who uses a word processor and email, and who doesn't care about how fast her computer goes.
I think this is the question that so many people ask, which is why people get obsessed with these types of questions. The effort to prove who is right and who is wrong typically has a bad end thoughout history (anger, wars, death). Instead of asking why things are different, we should be asking why things are the same.
- Evolution proves that all life is inter-linked, which is expected even if you believe in God. God created the lower life forms before he created Man, so it's logical to assume He improved His designs over time.
- Science is never going to be able to explain the universal truths, because that is not it's goal. Science only figures out HOW things work- it doesn't prove what things ARE. For example, Einstein's Laws exist, we know they exist. But nobody can explain WHY they exist, or how they came to exist rather then some other laws. Therefore, trying to fit them to some universal truth that proves what existance is doesn't make any sense. Even if evolution were "proven", what purpose would that serve? Eveolution still doesn't explain why living things move and innanimate objects don't. So it's obvious something created life, that it did not come out of non-life. That thing is God (or whatever you want to call it.)
- Science provides the how, religion provides the why. The two are complimentary, not exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of Cable TV when it was introduced is to offer people a scheme whereby they payed to NOT see commercials. Then execs realized they could make more money by forcing you to watch commercials in addition to paying for TV.
Same thing with movies. For a while, the justification of higher movie ticket prices was the fact that you didn't have to see commercials before the movie. Now they brought that back, so you are once again paying for both content and commercials (typically I will be 10-15 minutes late to a movie so I don't have to sit through commercials.)
Even websites are getting increasingly annoying. A web browser without a popup ad blocker is almost useless. Half the websites you go to, you have to register to view any content, so the company can spam your inbox with product ads. God forbid a person read any content without a million ads in their face.
Now even TiVo has sadly succum to what seems to be a very bad trend in the US. TiVo was one of the few companies that seemed to understand that people DON'T want to constantly be smothered by rediculus ads. One of the few companies using a technology to give power back to the people. But it looks like it wasn't meant to last. Time to kiss that all goodby, and say hello to more pop up ads and spam.
And execs wonder why people do things like pirate TV shows and movies? When you treat your customers like little babies, guess what? Eventually people get pissed off, and will go out of their way to find an alternative system that works for them. Even if it's illegal.
The Pixar exec to the Disney exec:
"The Almightly says I'll get through this one, but he's pretty sure, you're f**ked."
Metroid Prime is the first Metroid game where I could sense anything like an appreciable storyline.
Um, what Metroid games have you been playing? The book for the first one is huge, going into to how Metroids were created, the space pirates, etc. And I thought it was a pretty cool plot twist how in the end, Samus turns out to be a girl. The second Metroid (Gameboy) had the whole metroid-mutation thing, and the baby metroid at the end that thinks Samus is it's mother. Then in the 3rd Metroid for Super Nintendo you have the baby metroid growing up and ultimately saving Samus' life.
Just because a game lacks flashy FMV cut scenes doesn't mean it doesn't have a story.
What I would like to see is more anime movie-like gameplay: combining traditional hand-drawn side scrolling with an appropriate amount of 3D reorientation and cut scenes to give the 2D depth and imagination.
I remember when I first saw Street Fighter 3, how impressed I was with the animation. Is it that companies really don't know how to draw that kind of art any more?
I think in a way, 3D was an excuse not to spend so much time with drawn art, which takes time and is more difficult to create then 3D models (ironically, with today's tools.)
But Tubes Rock!
e /tubesrock.html
http://www.joyoftech.com/geekculturestore/webstor
"It's Megamaid! She's gone from suck to blow!"
Is not the entire academic process an asymptotic approach to the truth?
Not necessarily. I've studied the history of science, and I've discovered that often times, people will often perpetually gravitate towards their own beliefs and preconceptions until someone steps in and breaks the link (ex: Einstein, Newton, etc.) by showing them something so radically different, that it changes their perceptions and the way they view the world.
A very good example is in orbital mechanics and the idea people had for a LONG time that the Earth was the center of the universe and that all the planets must move in circular orbits, since the circle was thought to be the perfect geometrical shape. These ideas were so powerful in society at that time (pushed mainly by the Church), that when more accurate observations were recorded of the movements of planets in the solar system (retrograde of Venus, etc.), people had a horrendous time making sense of what they observed. A Greek astronomer named Ptolemy devised all these obscure geometrical structures (circles rotating around circles while shifting along another line- called epicycles) to try to fit the observed data to the established idea that planets must move in circles. In other words, instead of simply looking at the data and coming up with a conclusion that makes sense, people did everything possible to keep stable their established and accepted view of reality.
When you read this stuff, you have to laugh, because it seems so obvious what we now know to be the truth. But for most fundamental truths, people will often violently oppose the idea when it's introduced. The reason is because people REALLY want the world to work the way they believe it to work right now. They compose their beliefs, not realizing that the beliefs themselves stop them from even considering any idea that might challenge or disrupt the belief.
Einstein once said that "We can't solve problems of the world by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." So yes, it often times takes a genious to step and formulate a powerful new idea which throws people for a loop for a while until they "get it" and the idea becomes self evident. Especially when the established viewpoint in society is very strong. But even then, it might take years or even decades before society relents and the opinion of the average person changes to match the truth (Example: no less then three people before Copernicus had the idea that the Earth rotated around the Sun, before it was finally established as fact. Which amounts to maybe hundreds of years of people denying the truth until they had some sense beaten into them!)
Of course similar errors could exist with a conventional encyclopedia - but I would be interested in refutations of his point 3.
A normal encyclopedia has trained researchers working day and night to gathering research, compose articles with the best information, and check and recheck until the articles are perfect.
Wikipedia has 100000000 monkeys and maybe 100 smart people composing articles.
100 out of 100000000. And you actually think that the 100 are going to be discovered by the people who have to wade through 100000100 contributions and figure out which are the best?
This is his point. Trying to find the one good contributer with the correct factual information amist zillions of monkeys posting because they are bored is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
There is clearly a means to resolve these inconsistencies in that particular article! Edit it!!
Yes, but the point is, how do the people who review the edits determine, from the hundreds of contributers, who has the "correct" information?
Answer: by consulting a real encyclopedia.
The article makes a very good point. With Open Source, should it be "power to the people" or "power to the smart people"? While it may be altruistic to support the former, the reality is that just because someone makes a contribution, it doesn't mean the contribution is smart or useful. Even if a contribuiton is smart, it has to be smart in the view of the entire community before it gets incorportated.
Which is the major drawback of open source. How do you make sure the cream rises to the top in a society where you have a zillion contributions per day? Blog after blog on the net are filled with useless drivel from people of little brain, trying pathetically to make their little "mark" on the net. Some of these people have no clue how to write, yet the power exists for them to do so.
Which brings up another interesting discussion. We are moving more and more towards a society where those that are not experts have the same voice and can make the same impact on people as those that ARE experts. The net doesn't discriminate the quality of users before they are allowed to post.
The new powerful people are not the experts, not the regular contributers, but the people who decide which is which.
You know it's slashdot when a story like this is posted and people immediately say "I have that book!"
;-)
Talk about trying to pry an Amiga out of a dead person's hands
We live in a morally ambiguous universe.
And this is what most people in this world do not get. You, me, we read slashdot- we are informed. The average person does not inform themselves, which is why we get statements like "The US is always good" and "The terrorists are always bad". People who makes such statements are completely clueless- since there are a million answers to the contrary, if only a person would do a simple net search and read them.
The problem is never terrorism. The problem is people not getting informed, not questioning their own beliefs, sitting at home on their couch with a beer and their hand and beliving that the world is flat. You can't even talk to a person like that, because they are only going to speak to you from their limited base. Once people understand that EVERY person's opinions and beliefs have some basis in fact, they no longer can use petty disagreements to divide people.
Education is how you combat terrorism, not with weapons.
All people will do is start selling components for cameras that disable/foil these "detection" devices. Surveillance and Counter-surveillance.
The capacity of some kid coming up with a simple solution that works is much higher then the corporate execs who keep trying to fight them.
Has google made any progress in indexing the so-called "Dark Net"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1721006.stm
My porn resources just doubled!
"Double your pleasure... double your fun..."
"Here you are sushi... and wasabi..."
"Hehe, 'wasabi'"
"Yea, wasabi"
"Wassssaaaabi!!"
http://trevc.net/whassup/cparodies/wasabi.mov
Winamp has the features, but iTunes has the interface. Winamp always felt like a "hack" app: throw everything in a can and maybe what you get out of it is your music. It worked because it does everything and there weren't any good alternatives. What iTunes did was focus on the essential features and provided a killer UI with which to work with them.
With most people, UI and "ease of use" usually beats features. The Slashdot crowd is the exception, not the rule.
This brings up a good point. Security is not equivalent to market share, I.E. just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's more or less secure. If something was created with security flaws, then the flaws exist regardless if the product is popular or not. It's just that they are MORE VISABLE with a popular product, because more people are using the product (more discovery time for flaws), and the flaws are discussed to a greater extent because the product is popular. Nobody is going to care about the flaws of an unpopular product.
Something to be learned from all of this? Fix your flaws before you ship, and be ready for a time when your product is popular. Because if you think small and assume that your flaws won't be noticed enough for it to make a difference to your sales, you might discover with alarm that one day people really DO like your product, and then you are screwed trying to patch all the flaws after the fact.
Because they have to specify some constraints, otherwise the contest would be too easy.
The idea is to create a vehicle that can provide consistant access to space, not to make something that has to be thrown away. The Shuttle is due to retire in 2010, so obviously we are going to need something to replace it by then.
A low altitude orbit experiences drag due to Earth's atmosphere, so it's important to specify how many orbits, because that will dictate the amount of station-keeping thrust (= fuel) required to maintain the orbit. Also, for a circular orbit, the velocity is directly proportional to the distance from the Earth (see two-body problem in orbital mechanics), so the previous poster is correct in saying that if you achieve some velocity associated with an orbit, you achieve that orbit.
I'm not convinced yet apple is going to get Spotlight right, i.e. truely revolutionary. It has potential (smart Finder folders is on the right path) but at the moment, it seems they are more interested in simply trying to duplicate Quicksilver/Launchbar technology, which is the wrong way to do this.
I'm tired of apple ripping off ideas from developers without (A) Giving them credit or (B) developing something equivalent so the new as at least as feature-full as the old. Based on apple's history, the first version of Spotlight will likely be a horribly dumbed down version of Launchbar in terms of tech, since apple is obsessed with "ease of use": i.e. a three year old has to be able to work it.
Rant aside, there are a few key pieces I think apple is missing:
(1) User-created metadata. I should be able to tag anything I want with any metadata I want so the organization system follows ME and MY preferences, instead of the system determining it for me. Apple should be thinking about taking the insanely wonderful metadata system they created in iTunes and applying that to the finder. It is essential you be able to tag metadata in, because you don't always access the same objects for the same purposes.
(2) Flexible file system. This is a concept I've developed which basically says that the file system should be dynamic and adaptable to match the thought flow of the user (only possible with a good metadata file system). If you've ever seen this app on the PC, think: "The Brain". What that means is that if apple does #(2) right, it should be easy as hell to tag things, and then basically I can create relationships which let me "flow" through my files by navigating CONCEPTS instead of folder heirarchy. A good app that does this is Devonthink. Devonthink will grab the contents out of your files, and when you do a search, you can not only see your search term but "related" search terms. Click on a new search term and you get a new listing. So as you come up with ideas about what you want to do, you can easily and naturally branch off into other parts of your file system. This methodology models the way the human brain actually works- thinking in concepts and spacial organization, rather then structure. (The "flexible" comes because the system takes your tags and adapts the search around them, allowing you to change how the "flow" works, depending upon what topics are most important to you.)
(3) The next level after metadata search is a new way of visually interpreting the metadata and relationships between. Which means a NEW FINDER. I can't believe Steve actually threw this comment out after demoing Spotlight: "With this, you probably won't even need to use the finder any more." Well then why even have the Finder at all, Steve?! There IS a reason for the finder, which is why it's stayed around all these years, and that is that people think SPACIALLY. People are creatures of habit, and one way we remember where things are is if we know where to look for it and it's always in the same place. Which means there needs to be a visual grounding to the above dynamic files system, to give people a sure footing to all of this. I'm talking about things like a window that always stays in the same spot and always performs the same task, like showing you what new files have been added to the system, or actively updating your list of word documents wherever they are. Right now in the finder, a window is a window is a window. That shouldn't be. If a search is applied to a window, then that window isn't just showing you files, it's performing an active function. The finder needs to evolve to take on the new roles and responsiblities it should have in the context of a metadata files system. Spotlight should replace the finder: the two should work together seamlessly.
The good news is that Spotlight is built into the system, so even if apple screws up the implimentation (likely), the next generation of 3rd party apps will hopefully be able to fill in the gaps.
Frankly, I'm pissed about this. id made a HUGE deal out of the fact that you would not need the latest hardware on the PC side to run D3 acceptably. Reviews came out, and PC people marveled over the fact that id was true to their word. D3 plays pretty well on most PCs with decent processors and graphics cards.
Now that the mac version comes out, and we all suddenly need a G5 to play it. That's a bunch of crap. Either ID screwed up the mac version, or what we've cringed over so long is finally comming to pass: top gaming companies are abandoning their resources for the mac. When Quake 3 and Warcraft 3 came out of the mac, I thought things MIGHT turn around. But if you need a G5 for the D3 mac version, it's hardly going to sell at all.
This is not good news. Oh well. Time to buy a cheap PC for games. I'm sick of mac ports working at half the speed of the PC version.
"GeforceFX5200 isn't top of the line by any means, but it's also not quite the trash some make it out to be." Yes it is. It's about 5 to 6 times slower then then the top GPUs, which is what the typical gamer is looking to put in their machine. Thus it makes apple look horrendously backward to the people they are trying to impress: gamers. You think a gamer isn't going to know how pathetically old and sad the FX 5200 is? Maybe YOU don't care, because you don't have such demanding requirements. But the typical gamer DOES. "The PowerMac can be configured with a GeForce 6800 or Radeon 9800. Again, not exactly trash." And why exactly should any gamer go out and spend a crapload of money to add a GPU that apple should have BUILT INTO THE COMPUTER FROM DAY ONE? "But "Apple hardware is just not fit for gaming" is a little silly." Apple does not take gamers seriously because they don't understand the kind of hardware a gamer is expecting. Most mac users forgive apple for making their machines underpowered. We rationalize it and buy the machine anyway. But a gamer is NOT going to be that forgiving. Not in the least.
Apple needs to take gamers and their hardware requirements seriously.
Gamers frequently laugh at the mac, not because of the lack of games, but because of the the apparent apple stigmata AGAINST games. Gamers need a proper gaming machine, or they are not going to be happy. Look at the facts:
1) To get a mac with a decent graphics card built in, you need to pay $2500+ for a top-of-the-line G5. Apple computers typically ship with GPUs that are two to three generations behind the currently shipping top grade GPU. This is embarrassing for a company that seems to what to hold on to an unrealistic idea that their computers are cutting edge. Real gamers know better.
2) Apple computers typically ship with a less then average amount of RAM installed. Another embarrassment, this time even worse, because RAM is so cheap. These kinds of things make apple look bad to gamers, because they show apple is only interested in the bottom-feeder who has no clue how much RAM he/she realistically needs.
3) Apple's mouse and keyboard are of poor design. The average gamer needs lots of keys and lots of buttons. Once again, apple targets the bottom-feeder who has no clue. Gamers notice these types of details.
4) Apple does nothing to give gamers the little details they need which convince them they have a gaming machine. Like ALL ports in the front of the computer. Like pre-installed sound cards. Like included speakers that don't suck. Like good games which come with the computer. Etc.
So, for a hardcore gamer to buy a mac, they would typically have to do at least three things before they even install a single game: upgrade the graphics card, upgrade the RAM, and change the keyboard/mouse. All of this jacks up the price to unacceptable levels, especially since a gaming PC with all of the above typically runs about $1500.
Once gamers have exactly what they need (hardware-wise) from the moment they buy a mac, without spending a crapload on upgrading where apple has skimped on them, then maybe they'll consider the mac a serious gaming machine. But it's going to take apple changing their apparent viewpoint that all mac users are basically grandma who uses a word processor and email, and who doesn't care about how fast her computer goes.
I think this is the question that so many people ask, which is why people get obsessed with these types of questions. The effort to prove who is right and who is wrong typically has a bad end thoughout history (anger, wars, death). Instead of asking why things are different, we should be asking why things are the same.
- Evolution proves that all life is inter-linked, which is expected even if you believe in God. God created the lower life forms before he created Man, so it's logical to assume He improved His designs over time.
- Science is never going to be able to explain the universal truths, because that is not it's goal. Science only figures out HOW things work- it doesn't prove what things ARE. For example, Einstein's Laws exist, we know they exist. But nobody can explain WHY they exist, or how they came to exist rather then some other laws. Therefore, trying to fit them to some universal truth that proves what existance is doesn't make any sense. Even if evolution were "proven", what purpose would that serve? Eveolution still doesn't explain why living things move and innanimate objects don't. So it's obvious something created life, that it did not come out of non-life. That thing is God (or whatever you want to call it.)
- Science provides the how, religion provides the why. The two are complimentary, not exclusive.