I read a magazine article about Katzenberg - around the time of (I think) Madagascar's release. Possibly I have the wrong movie there. Anyway. The story was related of how Katzenberg has the Midas touch, and was watching an animation from a scene involving an altercation between two characters. Katzenberg's suggestion was to have one character "kick the other one in the ass" at the end. This really "made the scene" apparently, and was proof of Katzenberg's five-star comedy genius.
I remember making up my mind to definitely never watch Madagascar, as opposed to my previous stance of deciding to probably not watch it.
...is if this means that idiotic advertising executives can't come up with stupid advertising gimmicks like this any more, it's not just the terrorists that are winning - we all win.
Even if Apple does have a monopoly, which is debatable given how they obtained the market
Interesting...I wasn't aware that whether or not you are abusing a monopoly has anything at all to do with how you gained that monopoly in the first place.
Is there some kind of official body that grades monopolies - that works out who's naughty and nice?
Anyone who complains about Hollywood producers trying to make, and keep, all the money they can needs to wake up.
So your logic is, if someone has a history of acting like a selfish jerk, you should just let them get away with it, because "that's what they do"?
I think it's perfectly reasonable for Jackson to make a Hollywood picture, in the knowledge that some people at Hollywood are dishonest sharks. If he then calls them on being dishonest sharks, more power to him.
Just because they always do it, doesn't mean it's right, or that they should continue to get away with it.
How much of a surprise is it, really, that it requires a different personality and approach to be a good humanitarian instead of a good businessman? In the words of Monty Burns:
"I'll keep it short and sweet.
Family. Religion. Friendship.
These are the three demons you must slay, if you wish to succeed in business."
Kidding, right? I well remember the hell of trying to get TIE Fighter to run in 640k. MSCDEX, extended/expanded memory, juggling config.sys files, etc.
And DirectX allowed a standardised interface to hardware, which allowed for the widespread rise of 3D accelerators. I for one am glad that games don't only word with 3dfx/glide etc any more (hello Tomb Raider, if we're sticking to your examples).
Even for 2D graphics, it was an improvement - the chipsets of the day had pretty awesome blitters (as demonstrated by the venerable FoxBear demo), but MS's research found that developers rarely used them because the blitters were all different and all had their own API/drivers. Remember, this was in the days when there were more players in the gfx card market than just ATI, nVidia and Intel. But even with just 3, who'd want to program to 3 different APIs/drivers?
I read once about a programmer who decided to investigate the whole 'if we built bridges like we built software' thing, and did a survey of various bridges that were built in a particular time period. Guess what - a large proportion of the bridges fell down.
Much to my annoyance, I can't for the life of me remember where I read it now - I thought it was Bentley in his 'Programming Pearls', but I can't find it in there now.
mmmmm.... when I click on a folder name (twice) to get into name-edit mode, then hit Escape, it cancels the edit.
Even if I hit Delete when editing the name and the name is nulled out, then hit Enter or Return or click elsewhere outside the name, it restores it to the previous name. It won't allow me to leave it with no name.
Well, that leaves us with:
I'm lying.
I was hallucinating.
I'm telling the truth, and Apple have since fixed the issue.
I have to say, though, I'm pretty sure it happened, because when I pressed Escape and I got a (probably fairly important) folder renamed to '' because I pressed Escape, I remember thinking what a stupendously stupid bit of UI that was. I may have typed something - because I wanted to find a name by typing, but it might have overwritten the name - at which point I pressed Escape to cancel the edit. (I no longer have the Mac to try it on.)
Even if I hit the spacebar once to give it the invisible name of [one space] I can visit the Edit menu, choose Undo Rename, and the name I just changed is restored.
I don't recall saying that wasn't possible.
Just what version of OSX are you on? Or are you sure you're even ON OSX?
I tried the (I think) penultimate RC of Vista, and the thing that annoyed me about UAC was the annoying delay and screen blank/monitor resync while it switched to the secure desktop. It meant the UAC dialog always took a few seconds to appear, and had a horrible visual jarring effect. I visited the Vista shell blog/forums, and lots of people were complaining about it.
The response was that you could make the UAC dialog appear on the normal (unsecure) desktop, but then you lost the security (other programs can spoof mouse clicks/keyboard events). They couldn't get around the blank/delay thing, as their wonderful virtual window manager couldn't cope with doing it any other way, and they would try to address it in the next version of Windows.
In other words, they fucked up the design. I can't believe nobody caught this earlier. Guess they wanted to ship it. It makes Vista look really clunky (at least on my graphics card - an ATI 9800 Pro; scarcely uncommon).
And frankly, I have a Mac that I hardly ever use because I find the UI so strange sometimes. It's just me, I'm sure, as most other people much prefer it. But I find, for example, that the Windows MUST CLICK OK FOR EVERY ACT mentality suits me better.
My favourite was when I clicked on a folder in the Finder while looking at some semi-important stuff, and OS X decided I wanted to rename the folder. I pressed Escape to cancel, which cleared the name and renamed the folder to have no name. Argh! I couldn't even remember what the folder was called before, as I hadn't deliberately clicked on it.
The thing about PC gaming is that games on PC don't really use the operating system at all.
Yes, they do. I tried writing a PC game once without using the OS, but I couldn't open any of my data files.
They all run in full-screen mode with their own UI.
Oh, you mean they don't really use the Window manager? The OS is more than a GUI.
As long as your version of Windows has the needed version of DirectX, etc. etc., a committed PC gamer doesn't really care if he's running Vista, XP, 2K, or 95.
Unless I'm mistaken, quite a few games now don't (officially) support 95.
BTW, DirectX uses the OS, which you may not have realised.
I checked Google, and the only page that is even closely related to the claim is a blog post by "Joel on Software."
In addition, here in the UK, almost all cars have manual transmission. I can't remember the last time I got into a car in the UK that had automatic transmission. You can get automatic transmission if you want (on probably almost any new model now, I'm guessing), but you have to request it.
Does this mean that the UK is populated entirely by programmers? If so, how come I have to help people with their computers so often?
Call me crazy, but this style of command layout sounds more like a Mac-style interface.
In what way? I haven't used OS X much since Tiger, so I may have missed the tabbed toolbar approach being added to the OS X style. Or did you mean something else? Bigger icons?
I'm confused - didn't you just then go on to confirm that Apple switched to Intel because they got better performance per watt, as the original poster said?
Or do you mean IBM's performance per watt was really good, but had a lower bound on power consumption that was too much for Apple's laptops/iMacs/Mac minis?
I was certainly under the impression that Apple were very frustrated with not being able to produce a 'state of the art' laptop with the G5 chipset (hence this famous image), and saw the Pentium M and what else Intel had coming, and decided the world of x86 was good. Performance per watt was definitely the reason Jobs gave when he announced the Intel switch.
Slashdot Mirror
I read a magazine article about Katzenberg - around the time of (I think) Madagascar's release. Possibly I have the wrong movie there. Anyway. The story was related of how Katzenberg has the Midas touch, and was watching an animation from a scene involving an altercation between two characters. Katzenberg's suggestion was to have one character "kick the other one in the ass" at the end. This really "made the scene" apparently, and was proof of Katzenberg's five-star comedy genius.
I remember making up my mind to definitely never watch Madagascar, as opposed to my previous stance of deciding to probably not watch it.
I sometimes think I'm the only person that thought Shrek was tired, formulaic and uninspired. The animation was a bit rubbish, too.
...is if this means that idiotic advertising executives can't come up with stupid advertising gimmicks like this any more, it's not just the terrorists that are winning - we all win.
At least Mussolini made the phones ring on time.
Interesting...I wasn't aware that whether or not you are abusing a monopoly has anything at all to do with how you gained that monopoly in the first place.
Is there some kind of official body that grades monopolies - that works out who's naughty and nice?
Let me guess...you're not a Nobel Laureate, right? :-)
Out of interest, for how many years have you been thinking that?
So, bad news for Prince Charles then.
Should be easy to check - if her Dad tries her bedroom door and the electric doorlocks are active, then she's finished booting Linux.
Oi! You kids! Get off my lawn!
So...
On the other hand, where are those super-cool hologram storage things I remember hearing about years ago??Why, would they enable us to store more info in the same space..? Whoo. :-)
So your logic is, if someone has a history of acting like a selfish jerk, you should just let them get away with it, because "that's what they do"?
I think it's perfectly reasonable for Jackson to make a Hollywood picture, in the knowledge that some people at Hollywood are dishonest sharks. If he then calls them on being dishonest sharks, more power to him.
Just because they always do it, doesn't mean it's right, or that they should continue to get away with it.
Family. Religion. Friendship.
These are the three demons you must slay, if you wish to succeed in business."
I love the way these Office Space quotes are modded 'insightful', 'interesting' and 'informative'.
Listen vairy carefully, I will say zis only once...
The GP was right, except for a slight mistake re: $25 vs $30.
Here endeth the lesson.
I just hope I didn't make any stupid mistakes :-)
Linky?
Kidding, right? I well remember the hell of trying to get TIE Fighter to run in 640k. MSCDEX, extended/expanded memory, juggling config.sys files, etc.
And DirectX allowed a standardised interface to hardware, which allowed for the widespread rise of 3D accelerators. I for one am glad that games don't only word with 3dfx/glide etc any more (hello Tomb Raider, if we're sticking to your examples).
Even for 2D graphics, it was an improvement - the chipsets of the day had pretty awesome blitters (as demonstrated by the venerable FoxBear demo), but MS's research found that developers rarely used them because the blitters were all different and all had their own API/drivers. Remember, this was in the days when there were more players in the gfx card market than just ATI, nVidia and Intel. But even with just 3, who'd want to program to 3 different APIs/drivers?
I read once about a programmer who decided to investigate the whole 'if we built bridges like we built software' thing, and did a survey of various bridges that were built in a particular time period. Guess what - a large proportion of the bridges fell down.
Much to my annoyance, I can't for the life of me remember where I read it now - I thought it was Bentley in his 'Programming Pearls', but I can't find it in there now.
Even if I hit Delete when editing the name and the name is nulled out, then hit Enter or Return or click elsewhere outside the name, it restores it to the previous name. It won't allow me to leave it with no name.
Well, that leaves us with:
I have to say, though, I'm pretty sure it happened, because when I pressed Escape and I got a (probably fairly important) folder renamed to '' because I pressed Escape, I remember thinking what a stupendously stupid bit of UI that was. I may have typed something - because I wanted to find a name by typing, but it might have overwritten the name - at which point I pressed Escape to cancel the edit. (I no longer have the Mac to try it on.)
Even if I hit the spacebar once to give it the invisible name of [one space] I can visit the Edit menu, choose Undo Rename, and the name I just changed is restored.I don't recall saying that wasn't possible.
Just what version of OSX are you on? Or are you sure you're even ON OSX?Yes, it was OS X. I think it was Jaguar.
I tried the (I think) penultimate RC of Vista, and the thing that annoyed me about UAC was the annoying delay and screen blank/monitor resync while it switched to the secure desktop. It meant the UAC dialog always took a few seconds to appear, and had a horrible visual jarring effect. I visited the Vista shell blog/forums, and lots of people were complaining about it.
The response was that you could make the UAC dialog appear on the normal (unsecure) desktop, but then you lost the security (other programs can spoof mouse clicks/keyboard events). They couldn't get around the blank/delay thing, as their wonderful virtual window manager couldn't cope with doing it any other way, and they would try to address it in the next version of Windows.
In other words, they fucked up the design. I can't believe nobody caught this earlier. Guess they wanted to ship it. It makes Vista look really clunky (at least on my graphics card - an ATI 9800 Pro; scarcely uncommon).
My favourite was when I clicked on a folder in the Finder while looking at some semi-important stuff, and OS X decided I wanted to rename the folder. I pressed Escape to cancel, which cleared the name and renamed the folder to have no name. Argh! I couldn't even remember what the folder was called before, as I hadn't deliberately clicked on it.
Disconcerting.
Yes, they do. I tried writing a PC game once without using the OS, but I couldn't open any of my data files.
They all run in full-screen mode with their own UI.Oh, you mean they don't really use the Window manager? The OS is more than a GUI.
As long as your version of Windows has the needed version of DirectX, etc. etc., a committed PC gamer doesn't really care if he's running Vista, XP, 2K, or 95.Unless I'm mistaken, quite a few games now don't (officially) support 95.
BTW, DirectX uses the OS, which you may not have realised.
In addition, here in the UK, almost all cars have manual transmission. I can't remember the last time I got into a car in the UK that had automatic transmission. You can get automatic transmission if you want (on probably almost any new model now, I'm guessing), but you have to request it.
Does this mean that the UK is populated entirely by programmers? If so, how come I have to help people with their computers so often?
In what way? I haven't used OS X much since Tiger, so I may have missed the tabbed toolbar approach being added to the OS X style. Or did you mean something else? Bigger icons?
I'm confused - didn't you just then go on to confirm that Apple switched to Intel because they got better performance per watt, as the original poster said?
Or do you mean IBM's performance per watt was really good, but had a lower bound on power consumption that was too much for Apple's laptops/iMacs/Mac minis?
I was certainly under the impression that Apple were very frustrated with not being able to produce a 'state of the art' laptop with the G5 chipset (hence this famous image), and saw the Pentium M and what else Intel had coming, and decided the world of x86 was good. Performance per watt was definitely the reason Jobs gave when he announced the Intel switch.