You must not like the new iPods, because the last time I checked, they play music, play video, show pictures, and are a UMS device. That's atleast four things right there. Even the Shuffle is both a music player and a USB thumbdrive.
Those features make more practical sense. more importantly, they don't add much space. Your flash/hard drive is already a storage device. No cost to implement that feature. A camera requires physical space, the idea of the iPod is to be small. Video playback does not add space to the unit.
Why on earth would someone want a larger iPod, just so they can get a low-quality camera? Such a product would be better as an optional extra that sits on top of the iPod, and stores pictures on the hard drive. Plus you are making people who don't want another camera, and just want a music player, pay extra for it. It doesn't really change the components much to simply enable video playback - the chips already support it!
One seed brings many thousands of seeds. You keep some of them and eat the rest. You don't know much about agriculture, do you? You take energy from the sun, and nutrients from waste, and put that energy into multiplying your crop yield. Simple, really.
The next step is distribution. Then you have to have the market to sell it at
But why do you need to sell it, if you have enough to eat for yourself? It can also be bartered locally for other goods. Distribution doesn't have to be complex - it can involve simply taking a wagon down to the local farmer's market.
Then again, maybe you should just give up your computer, and every thing else modern, and live like a pheasant from 10,000 years ago, seems fitting for you.
Huh? What does this have to do with my post? Also, it would probably be difficult for me to live as a pheasant. How would I change my species from being human?
By the way, have you never heard of Neil from the British TV show The Young Ones? Here's a clue: my post was a joke. Funny that you should take it seriously.
The charity-organisation are to blame for that. They've been presenting Africa as a giant homogenous mess instead of the diverse continent it is.
Oh yes, it's ALL the fault of those charity organizations. It wouldn't have anything to do with a long history of imperialism, and naive notions like "the noble savage" and outright racism. Nothing at all to do with the ignorance of the average media consumer, and self-obsessed nationalism.
> Nope, it's those evil charities. Just like Greenpeace is TERRORIST NUMBER ONE!!!!
You mean, just like the Europeans are doing? Not to mention the Japanese, the Chinese, and now the Russians - so eager to learn?
How does someone else doing something make it acceptable? That's like saying torture and murder is OK because some people do it. In other words, it is no basis for an ethical system. or are you saying that it's just fine for other countries to do it, that's there's no problem? Doesn't sound like it from the context.
The desperate and impoverished created by centuries of European despotism, genocide, slavery, and all-around nasty behavior. We're saints in comparison.
And how is the history of Europe relevant to to what's happening today, and the steps we need to take to fix it? If you set the bar that low, you risk becoming a monster. "Yeah, we're fantastic because Hitler murdered the Jews."
Other people doing bad things does not make you good. Doing the right thing does. I personally would rather that we better ourselves as human societies - not make excuses for bad behaviour.
A 300 microns thick paper would be less likely to cut you than a 100 microns thick paper. The risk of paper cuts is not the severity of the damage - it is the unexpected injury from a seemingly benign product.
In any event, it's silly to deny that Windows hasn't had a positive effect on the number of machines in people's homes these days.
I don't know. It would be just as silly to claim that it is just because of Windows. I thought more people had computers, because they have gotten cheaper, and more necessary for work. Windows makes computers more expensive, and not as easy to use.
There is simply not the data to prove whether or not Windows had a significant effect on computer adoption. most people were going to end up with one, anyway, whether the software was made by microsoft, Apple, Commodore, Google or some company that exists in a parallel universe.
Since we don't have access to a parallel copy of the universe, we don't know whether Microsoft helped or hindered computing. Perhaps more people would own computers if today's software and Operating Systems weren't so demanding of resources? Or if they remained network, rather than desktop-centric.
I have never known anyonw who bought a computer because of Microsoft. Many but in spite of Microsoft. I have known people to avoid getting into computers at all, because of Microsoft, though.
The idea is convenience. Spending forever re-encoding every download and every video just to see it on my ipod isn't worth the trouble.
No problem. If the idea catches on, download sites and bittorrents will offer versions encoded and sized for the iPod or for other devices. This is very convenient if you only wish to view it on the portable device. You won't waste time by downloading a huge file you don't need. So, uploaders and downloaders save bandwidth, while everybody has increased choice, and a bigger market.
Basically, it only has to be re-encoded once, then it can be distributed much more easily. If people want it, then the market will probably provide it. Certainly, this size and format makes perfect sense for videoblogs and commercial news websites, etc. Most of those videos online are already 320x240 or less in resolution, and H.264 or MPEG-4 is perfect for viewing in either the computer browser, or the portable device.
most people try not to see the world with anything approaching realism. We love getting drunk. When we go to parties, we use UV and special FX lighting. People use makeup, fashion and cosmetic surgery to alter their appearance. We like to read magazines about celebrity lives. We like our egos, we like to think we are always right. We like to believe political lies and delusions that make us feel good. We like to think we work much harder than other people. We like to think our nation is the world's best. We like to think that we are super-strong commandos, who can slay an army with only an M-16 and 1337 pwning skillz. We like to think we are badass car thieves struggling against society.
In short, what the fuck to videogames have to do with reality? Aren't they about escapism, just like almost everything else we spend our money on?
In the MIT experiment, the boat was arguably a very poor replica of a trireme. It was painted black to optimize the energy transfer (which in the end didn't matter).
Why would the greeks have tried to set fire to the wood? It would me much easier to target the sails, and they would burn much more quickly. Once the sails are burning, the wood follows. I don't understand why modern people have such problems following logic, and instead have such faith in modern products, and complex solutions rather than simple ones.
The ships in the battle were anchored and stationary. They don't "show up" - they are sitting there ready to aim at. And sunny days are not uncommon. So, it certainly is possible. It might be hard, but humans have done many very difficult things.
I use the "Strata 3D Vector" plug-in for Strata 3D. it's fairly primitive, but oputputs Flash, Illustrator, etc, and has options for shadow and lighting rendering. It is fairly cheap as 3D software goes, and Strata is dead simple to use compared to the majority of 3D applications. It has a stunning raydiosity rendering engine.
Does it mean that all vector-based programs are both vector and raster? Or maybe it just means that the terms "vector" and "raster" mean something different than you think?
To a degree, yes. As I said, nearly everything is rasterized for printing or screen display, even if used as a vector for other purposes. I thought my commment was pretty obvious. 3D programs are generally much more hybrid than 2D software. For example, output from 2D vector software is often output to vinyl-cutters, CNC routers or Postrcipt printers as a vector format. Usually 3D output ends up in Photoshop or a video animation.
You use vectors to create 3D objects and you apply raster textures, render in a rasterized format, etc.
I'm not sure why you think I am confused. I've been working with vectors and pixels for a couple of decades. What are you suggesting my misunderstanding is? Or did you not understand my post?
The diminutive Airport Express base-station has a combination optical/analog copper minijack. I can't imagine that adding an LED for optical output would be bulky - and you don't need to use the A/D converter because it's direct digital. That may even save battery life if it is switched off while using optical out.
I'd rather see video out on an Airport Basestation than on the iPod, anyway.
It's success is down to it's marketing, nothing more. It doesn't matter how good it is; if folk don't know it exists, they won't want it.
That's absolute bullshit. The iPod was already a huge success in the Mac world, before the big marketing campaigns started, after the release of the Windows version. The iPod gained its success because of the quality of the product, and word-of-mouth among Mac users. People used to buy Macs just to use an iPod, before the Windows version!
The marketinng came after the excellent reviews in the press, and the reputation for being a highly usab;e, solid player. The "fashion" aspect did not come until later.
The people who tended to buy iPods (and those who it was marketed to) were not the "try before you buy" type, nor were they the kind who researched other brands. They call any mp3 player "an iPod".
Only AFTER it was a hit among technically-savvy Mac users. Every MP3 player was certainly not called an iPod during the initial sales, only after market dominance. get your history straight.
This is true, but it doesn't excuse the totally outrageous claims that are simply based on zealotry and simple-mindedness - like "Apple is going under" or "the iPod sucks" or "It's all because of Steve Jobs' ego, he's running the company into the ground.
Even at the launch of the original iPod, it was clear that such commenters had no real insight into Apple, and had not used the products. They just had a chip on their shoulders.
In contrast, one could be excused for being wrong, if one wasn't so ignorant and aggressive in their original predictions. Those with more moderate positions were less wrong. Many people thought it would be a success, but very few realized just how much of a success.
Slashdot Mirror
Those features make more practical sense. more importantly, they don't add much space. Your flash/hard drive is already a storage device. No cost to implement that feature. A camera requires physical space, the idea of the iPod is to be small. Video playback does not add space to the unit.
Why on earth would someone want a larger iPod, just so they can get a low-quality camera? Such a product would be better as an optional extra that sits on top of the iPod, and stores pictures on the hard drive. Plus you are making people who don't want another camera, and just want a music player, pay extra for it. It doesn't really change the components much to simply enable video playback - the chips already support it!
isn't Apu Indian, not Arabic?
One seed brings many thousands of seeds. You keep some of them and eat the rest. You don't know much about agriculture, do you? You take energy from the sun, and nutrients from waste, and put that energy into multiplying your crop yield. Simple, really.
The next step is distribution. Then you have to have the market to sell it at
But why do you need to sell it, if you have enough to eat for yourself? It can also be bartered locally for other goods. Distribution doesn't have to be complex - it can involve simply taking a wagon down to the local farmer's market.
Then again, maybe you should just give up your computer, and every thing else modern, and live like a pheasant from 10,000 years ago, seems fitting for you.
Huh? What does this have to do with my post? Also, it would probably be difficult for me to live as a pheasant. How would I change my species from being human?
By the way, have you never heard of Neil from the British TV show The Young Ones? Here's a clue: my post was a joke. Funny that you should take it seriously.
Oh yes, it's ALL the fault of those charity organizations. It wouldn't have anything to do with a long history of imperialism, and naive notions like "the noble savage" and outright racism. Nothing at all to do with the ignorance of the average media consumer, and self-obsessed nationalism.
> Nope, it's those evil charities. Just like Greenpeace is TERRORIST NUMBER ONE!!!!
How does someone else doing something make it acceptable? That's like saying torture and murder is OK because some people do it. In other words, it is no basis for an ethical system. or are you saying that it's just fine for other countries to do it, that's there's no problem? Doesn't sound like it from the context.
The desperate and impoverished created by centuries of European despotism, genocide, slavery, and all-around nasty behavior. We're saints in comparison.
And how is the history of Europe relevant to to what's happening today, and the steps we need to take to fix it? If you set the bar that low, you risk becoming a monster. "Yeah, we're fantastic because Hitler murdered the Jews."
Other people doing bad things does not make you good. Doing the right thing does. I personally would rather that we better ourselves as human societies - not make excuses for bad behaviour.
Simple:
Would you like me to explain that again?
A 300 microns thick paper would be less likely to cut you than a 100 microns thick paper. The risk of paper cuts is not the severity of the damage - it is the unexpected injury from a seemingly benign product.
It's what makes me, me. But I want to be 40% aluminium, I goddamn will be. What do you think my eyes are made of? Tranparent aluminium, you meatbag!
Bender
P.S: Wanna go get drunk?
Gates was later found kneeling in the rain, screaming GOOOOOORRRE!
I don't know. It would be just as silly to claim that it is just because of Windows. I thought more people had computers, because they have gotten cheaper, and more necessary for work. Windows makes computers more expensive, and not as easy to use.
There is simply not the data to prove whether or not Windows had a significant effect on computer adoption. most people were going to end up with one, anyway, whether the software was made by microsoft, Apple, Commodore, Google or some company that exists in a parallel universe.
Since we don't have access to a parallel copy of the universe, we don't know whether Microsoft helped or hindered computing. Perhaps more people would own computers if today's software and Operating Systems weren't so demanding of resources? Or if they remained network, rather than desktop-centric.
I have never known anyonw who bought a computer because of Microsoft. Many but in spite of Microsoft. I have known people to avoid getting into computers at all, because of Microsoft, though.
I'm 40% aluminium! Bender
No problem. If the idea catches on, download sites and bittorrents will offer versions encoded and sized for the iPod or for other devices. This is very convenient if you only wish to view it on the portable device. You won't waste time by downloading a huge file you don't need. So, uploaders and downloaders save bandwidth, while everybody has increased choice, and a bigger market.
Basically, it only has to be re-encoded once, then it can be distributed much more easily. If people want it, then the market will probably provide it. Certainly, this size and format makes perfect sense for videoblogs and commercial news websites, etc. Most of those videos online are already 320x240 or less in resolution, and H.264 or MPEG-4 is perfect for viewing in either the computer browser, or the portable device.
In short, what the fuck to videogames have to do with reality? Aren't they about escapism, just like almost everything else we spend our money on?
So, where did they store the sails hwne not in use? I doubt they removed them, they were likely just rolled up. Still easy enough to target.
The Timecube!
Why would the greeks have tried to set fire to the wood? It would me much easier to target the sails, and they would burn much more quickly. Once the sails are burning, the wood follows. I don't understand why modern people have such problems following logic, and instead have such faith in modern products, and complex solutions rather than simple ones.
Adam is so dreamy. I want to marry him and have Mythbusters children with him. Mythbusters are so smart!
The ships in the battle were anchored and stationary. They don't "show up" - they are sitting there ready to aim at. And sunny days are not uncommon. So, it certainly is possible. It might be hard, but humans have done many very difficult things.
RUN!!!!
I use the "Strata 3D Vector" plug-in for Strata 3D. it's fairly primitive, but oputputs Flash, Illustrator, etc, and has options for shadow and lighting rendering. It is fairly cheap as 3D software goes, and Strata is dead simple to use compared to the majority of 3D applications. It has a stunning raydiosity rendering engine.
To a degree, yes. As I said, nearly everything is rasterized for printing or screen display, even if used as a vector for other purposes. I thought my commment was pretty obvious. 3D programs are generally much more hybrid than 2D software. For example, output from 2D vector software is often output to vinyl-cutters, CNC routers or Postrcipt printers as a vector format. Usually 3D output ends up in Photoshop or a video animation.
You use vectors to create 3D objects and you apply raster textures, render in a rasterized format, etc.
I'm not sure why you think I am confused. I've been working with vectors and pixels for a couple of decades. What are you suggesting my misunderstanding is? Or did you not understand my post?
I prefer to let sleeping clowns lie. That way, they can't stab you. I certainly can't sleep when the clown is awake.
I'd rather see video out on an Airport Basestation than on the iPod, anyway.
That's absolute bullshit. The iPod was already a huge success in the Mac world, before the big marketing campaigns started, after the release of the Windows version. The iPod gained its success because of the quality of the product, and word-of-mouth among Mac users. People used to buy Macs just to use an iPod, before the Windows version!
The marketinng came after the excellent reviews in the press, and the reputation for being a highly usab;e, solid player. The "fashion" aspect did not come until later.
The people who tended to buy iPods (and those who it was marketed to) were not the "try before you buy" type, nor were they the kind who researched other brands. They call any mp3 player "an iPod".
Only AFTER it was a hit among technically-savvy Mac users. Every MP3 player was certainly not called an iPod during the initial sales, only after market dominance. get your history straight.
This is true, but it doesn't excuse the totally outrageous claims that are simply based on zealotry and simple-mindedness - like "Apple is going under" or "the iPod sucks" or "It's all because of Steve Jobs' ego, he's running the company into the ground.
Even at the launch of the original iPod, it was clear that such commenters had no real insight into Apple, and had not used the products. They just had a chip on their shoulders.
In contrast, one could be excused for being wrong, if one wasn't so ignorant and aggressive in their original predictions. Those with more moderate positions were less wrong. Many people thought it would be a success, but very few realized just how much of a success.