The consistent menu bar at the top of the screen is probably the single aspect of the Mac interface that I most appreciate. When I want a menu, I don't even have to look for the appropriate menu bar--I just whip my mouse up blindly, and I know that the pointer will end up in a menubar that is appropriate for the window that I was just working in.
I can't agree with some of them. For example:"Don't use non-standard controls".
More accurately, it says not to use non-standard controls unless the application really needs them--in particular, don't create a non-standard version of a control that is already available in a standard form.
I remember it as a practical joke. You make a mixture of cornstarch and water, and continuously roll it between your hands to that it makes a nice firm ball. Then you hand it to a victim, and laugh as it immediately turns into a messy puddle in his hand.
I'm not saying MIT wasn't wrong here, but Horizon is just as wrong for stealing Shirow's material in the first place.
I don't think the Radix picture resembles Shirow's material any more than they both resemble any of the many powered suit and robot images that have appeared over the years. But this is not a question of copying a concept, or even a design, especially one that has long been in the public domain. Comparison between the MIT image and the Radix cover reveals that it is a copy of that specific illustration.
i believe he ment finished product in the advertising sense. you have a demoish poster that the advertisers show to the client and say: "this is what the advertisement will look like" and you have the ad agencies finished product which is what is distributed.
Similarly, the illustration was only to be shown to the client, and not for general distribution. The actual product is the technology to produced under the grant, which will probably not look much like the illo.
This is not an issue of the originality of the concept. I think that everybody would agree that the concept of powered body armor long ago passed into the public domain. This is a swip of a specific illustration.
If I were the original author, I should even be flattered that they'd use my work for a greater purpose, and even more if it means making something that I have only imagined become a reality.
Perhaps you would be flattered if something that you created led to a project that eventually resulted in a weapon that killed lots of people, but I suspect that many artists would feel differently.
This wasn't a proposal in the sense of "Hey, this is how we think the layout should be, and we've got this picture of a futuristic soldier right here, and..." This was a finished project. This was "Hey, Feds, we'll give you this, you give us money."
No, it wasn't presented as an actual design or purported to be what the final product would look like--it was just an illustration to give the "flavor" of the concept, much like th use of similar swipes in advertising proposals.
Maybe this is just posturing so that they can get a more generous package from MIT, but I'd like to see a bit more moderation and cool-headedness. To me, it honestly looks like he's itching to sue MIT. The court system seems like the only recourse nowadays - so much for people and organizations acting morally.
He's got a right to be pissed off. This is a probably impoverished artist, whose work was appropriated by a big university and used to obtain a huge military grant, without even the courtesy of asking permission. He may even have political issues with his work being used in this way. But the fact is that MIT has a pretty strong "fair use" case. The only shot he has at making MIT suffer any consequences is making a case--albeit a somewhat strained one--that he has been harmed.
What MIT has done is classic non-fair-use of design work. A professional graphic designer would never have done what MIT did
That's hardly clear. After all, the image was never offered for sale or distributed to the general public. The courts may well consider this a "noncommercial" fair use.
Call me a sceptic, but I find it hard to believe that a system just "invented" radio, when the heuristics already present in the system don't already know about radio in the first place. If the system heuristics really have no knowledge of "radio" then how did the radio succeed in the simulated evolution, if the effects wern't already present in the heuristics?
The heuristics probably knew how to recognize an oscillation, and that was all. Probably they just ran its output through a FFT, and the closer the output was to a sine wave, the greater the circuit's "reproduction" rate. In a sense, it did not "know" that it had invented radio--rather, it had, by trial and error, come up with a ciruit that generated the "right" output.
The device didn't sit down and think "Hey, if I find an external oscillation, I don't have to develop one of my own..." By chance and structure it was given this opportunity. If the board had been made another way, it might not have worked.
The device itself may not have "figured it out" but in a sense, the process did. There is a lot of evidence about competitive interactions among neurons and circuits in the brain, so it may well be that when we "figure something out," something similar is going on inside our heads.
Because if there were a disease as you posited - more virulent and infectious than smallpox and the plague, but without a cure, like HIV, we would respond with quarantines.
Quarantines aren't much use unless you can identify infected individuals before they spread the disease. If a disease is highly contagious immediately, but with a long latency before serious symptoms, then it could infect most of the population before we even knew we had a problem.
It is odd that the reference you give for Dr. Root-Bernstein includes no references more recent than 1993. Science progresses rapidly these days. In a more recent 1997 article, he discusses "current arguments for the role of cofactors in the initiation of a chronic HIV infection and progression of AIDS."
One has to be careful not to confuse Duesberg's extreme views with the widely-held and far more reasonable suspicion that there are cofactors in addition to HIV that contribute to development of AIDS.
Several long-term non-progressors, as they're called, have this in common: They didn't take toxic antiretroviral medications.
And of course, there are many long-term non-progressors who do take antivirals. And a lot of people who didn't take antivirals and died of AIDS.
Presumably, as in the chimps, there are some people whose genes offer them natural protection, and who therefore don't need to take antivirals. If we really understood the genetic basis of resistance, we could identify resistant individuals who could safely be spared the expense and side effects of antiviral medications.
Duesberg's theory that HIV is not the cause of AIDS has been disproved to the satisfaction of every scientist but him. It's not the first time that an eminent scientist found himself unable to let go of a pet hypothesis that turned out to be wrong.
Based on his theory, Duesberg predicted that the drugs developed to treat HIV would do more harm than good. But in reality, they dramatically reduced AIDS deaths.
Calling it "bad marketing" is a bit unfair to Sony. Sony had a better product, and they charged more for it. Nothing unusual about that; they sold (and still sell) their TVs on the same basis. Sure, they don't sell as many TVs, but they sell them at a better margin.
The VCR was a classic example of a product being used in a different way than the manufacturer intended. VCRs were intended to be used primarily for time-shifting and archiving TV shows--that's what the famous "Betamax case" was about. That's why virtually all VCRs had TV tuners. Pre-recorded tapes were offered for sale, but they were ruinously expensive, and intended only for a handful of wealthy videophiles. From this perspective, Sony's high-end strategy made perfect sense.
What Sony didn't anticipate was the rise in tape renting, and the impact it would have on player sales. By the early '80's, there was a little "mom & pop" video rental joint in almost every neighborhood (this was before big chains like Blockbuster grabbed most of the pie). But supporting two formats doubled their cost (at those ruinous prerecorded tape prices). So they cut back on beta, the less popular format. Which made people less willing to buy beta VCRs. Which made rental shops less willing to stock beta tapes.
By now, we've seen a similar story played out with computer and videogame software. The less successful system gets less software, which makes it even less successful, which further reduces software development--and the market develops a kind of criticality. If you aren't wildly successful, you are doomed. But Sony had fewer examples to learn from (8-track audio tape, maybe? but that was also an inferior format). So we should not be so ready to fault Sony from the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight. Sony was just following the business model that had served them so well in the past, until suddenly, the world changed.
But it sounds less good once you equalize the volume. This is an old trick used by stereo shops to sell you the components that give them the best margin--they just turn the "preferred" equipment up a bit.
Actually original betamax could not record a full two hours on tape whereas VHS could. This did play a role in consumer perception.
Perhaps originally. But the long-play L750 tapes came in very early, well before VHS obtained a major lead. I imagine that most VCR buyers didn't even know that that there had ever been such a limitation. I certainly didn't know it when I was buying my first VCR, and debating between beta and VHS (I bought an VHS, but ended up exchanging it for a beta because I was unhappy with the quality and the tape handling).
Re:Come on folks, haven't you heard of PORN!!!
on
Sony Kills Betamax
·
· Score: 2
The truth is, BETA tried to impose all sorts of use restrictions because they didn't want their product associated with adult entertainment. So rather than jump through a bunch of hurdles, the adult entertainment industry overwhelmingly supported VHS.
No, this is a myth. Before VHS won out, adult films were available in both VHS and Beta formats.
Not the ol' Beta-superiority-undone-by-better-marketing myth.
Beta was superior in ONE WAY: it had slightly better quality. Yes, I said slightly.
Actually, beta was superior in a number of ways at different times. Sony was ahead in technology by about 6 months, but VHS always caught up. For example, Sony had high fidelity sound about 6 months ahead of VHS. Similarly, when SuperBeta came in, beta was considerably more than slightly superior in terms of picture, but VHS HQ almost closed the gap within 6 months. The one area where betas seemed to remain consistently superior was in tape handling. Even the cheapest betas were superior to VHS in going, say from fast forward to play, although some of today's high-end VHS players are as good as the old betas.
Both beta (Sony) and VHS (JVC) were proprietary formats, and both were licensed to other companies. Betas were made also by Zenith and Sanyo. However, Sony justifiably regarded their VCRs as a high-end product, and charged a premium (and presumably for licenses as well).
I don't believe that shorter recording length killed beta. Long-play L750 tapes were available well before the decline of beta. VHS maintained a length advantage with their larger cassettes, but it was modest. Neither was there much difference in media cost, although with the decline of beta, beta blank tapes became more of a specialty item, and more costly.
I think what really killed beta was the rise of videtape rental. And in fact, it the fall of beta coincided with the spread of video rental shops. As long as people bought VCRs to time-shift and archive shows for TV, Sony's high-end strategy was viable. But people began to use their players mainly for watching rented movies, and carrying both formats doubled the cost for video rental outlets. A store could do better by focusing on VHS tapes, since the cheaper VHS machines sold more widely. Greater availability of rentals for VHS encouraged sales of VHS players, widening the gap between beta and VHS--which encouraged video shops to cut back even further on beta stock in favor of VHS. By the time Sony finally gave up and started making VHS players, many rental outlets offered exclusively VHS tapes.
Ummmm.. I'll bet that most farmers are not taking immuno-superssives though and that makes a difference.
We are talking about centuries here, and there are lots of disease and illnesses that produce immunosuppression. You don't suppose anybody with a weak immune system ever cut themselves while butchering a hog?
Realistically speaking, the environmental impact of a medical technology that will be unaffordable by the great mass of people on the planet for the forseeable future is negligible.
Yes, one aspect of any effective medical treatment is that certain genetic diseases/weaknesses are not weeded out of the population as rapidly. But so what? Pretty soon, we'll probably be curing genetic disease directly.
AT LEAST if it showed a "tool tip" or "hint" or whatever it's called in the UI world when you select the file that brings up the entire filename, as Windows does. Maybe Jaguar now does this?
You don't need Jaguar for that, at least in the Finder. Just leave the mouse pointer on the title for a moment, and it will go to edit mode, showing the entire title. However, that doesn't work in a file dialog.
Slashdot Mirror
The consistent menu bar at the top of the screen is probably the single aspect of the Mac interface that I most appreciate. When I want a menu, I don't even have to look for the appropriate menu bar--I just whip my mouse up blindly, and I know that the pointer will end up in a menubar that is appropriate for the window that I was just working in.
More accurately, it says not to use non-standard controls unless the application really needs them--in particular, don't create a non-standard version of a control that is already available in a standard form.
I remember it as a practical joke. You make a mixture of cornstarch and water, and continuously roll it between your hands to that it makes a nice firm ball. Then you hand it to a victim, and laugh as it immediately turns into a messy puddle in his hand.
This is not an issue of the originality of the concept. I think that everybody would agree that the concept of powered body armor long ago passed into the public domain. This is a swip of a specific illustration.
One has to be careful not to confuse Duesberg's extreme views with the widely-held and far more reasonable suspicion that there are cofactors in addition to HIV that contribute to development of AIDS.
Presumably, as in the chimps, there are some people whose genes offer them natural protection, and who therefore don't need to take antivirals. If we really understood the genetic basis of resistance, we could identify resistant individuals who could safely be spared the expense and side effects of antiviral medications.
Duesberg's theory that HIV is not the cause of AIDS has been disproved to the satisfaction of every scientist but him. It's not the first time that an eminent scientist found himself unable to let go of a pet hypothesis that turned out to be wrong.
Based on his theory, Duesberg predicted that the drugs developed to treat HIV would do more harm than good. But in reality, they dramatically reduced AIDS deaths.
These are old objections, that have been answered many times. See, for example, the TalkOrigins Faq
Calling it "bad marketing" is a bit unfair to Sony. Sony had a better product, and they charged more for it. Nothing unusual about that; they sold (and still sell) their TVs on the same basis. Sure, they don't sell as many TVs, but they sell them at a better margin.
The VCR was a classic example of a product being used in a different way than the manufacturer intended. VCRs were intended to be used primarily for time-shifting and archiving TV shows--that's what the famous "Betamax case" was about. That's why virtually all VCRs had TV tuners. Pre-recorded tapes were offered for sale, but they were ruinously expensive, and intended only for a handful of wealthy videophiles. From this perspective, Sony's high-end strategy made perfect sense.
What Sony didn't anticipate was the rise in tape renting, and the impact it would have on player sales. By the early '80's, there was a little "mom & pop" video rental joint in almost every neighborhood (this was before big chains like Blockbuster grabbed most of the pie). But supporting two formats doubled their cost (at those ruinous prerecorded tape prices). So they cut back on beta, the less popular format. Which made people less willing to buy beta VCRs. Which made rental shops less willing to stock beta tapes.
By now, we've seen a similar story played out with computer and videogame software. The less successful system gets less software, which makes it even less successful, which further reduces software development--and the market develops a kind of criticality. If you aren't wildly successful, you are doomed. But Sony had fewer examples to learn from (8-track audio tape, maybe? but that was also an inferior format). So we should not be so ready to fault Sony from the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight. Sony was just following the business model that had served them so well in the past, until suddenly, the world changed.
But it sounds less good once you equalize the volume. This is an old trick used by stereo shops to sell you the components that give them the best margin--they just turn the "preferred" equipment up a bit.
Perhaps originally. But the long-play L750 tapes came in very early, well before VHS obtained a major lead. I imagine that most VCR buyers didn't even know that that there had ever been such a limitation. I certainly didn't know it when I was buying my first VCR, and debating between beta and VHS (I bought an VHS, but ended up exchanging it for a beta because I was unhappy with the quality and the tape handling).
Both beta (Sony) and VHS (JVC) were proprietary formats, and both were licensed to other companies. Betas were made also by Zenith and Sanyo. However, Sony justifiably regarded their VCRs as a high-end product, and charged a premium (and presumably for licenses as well).
I don't believe that shorter recording length killed beta. Long-play L750 tapes were available well before the decline of beta. VHS maintained a length advantage with their larger cassettes, but it was modest. Neither was there much difference in media cost, although with the decline of beta, beta blank tapes became more of a specialty item, and more costly.
I think what really killed beta was the rise of videtape rental. And in fact, it the fall of beta coincided with the spread of video rental shops. As long as people bought VCRs to time-shift and archive shows for TV, Sony's high-end strategy was viable. But people began to use their players mainly for watching rented movies, and carrying both formats doubled the cost for video rental outlets. A store could do better by focusing on VHS tapes, since the cheaper VHS machines sold more widely. Greater availability of rentals for VHS encouraged sales of VHS players, widening the gap between beta and VHS--which encouraged video shops to cut back even further on beta stock in favor of VHS. By the time Sony finally gave up and started making VHS players, many rental outlets offered exclusively VHS tapes.
Realistically speaking, the environmental impact of a medical technology that will be unaffordable by the great mass of people on the planet for the forseeable future is negligible.
Yes, one aspect of any effective medical treatment is that certain genetic diseases/weaknesses are not weeded out of the population as rapidly. But so what? Pretty soon, we'll probably be curing genetic disease directly.