Dumping on ME is a sacred/. pleasure. In reality, ME was little different from 98 Second Edition (98SE) that it replaced. One bad thing for sure was that it turned indexing on and that was a performance dog. Turn it off, and you had something better than 98. For one thing it had better USB support.
.
The main "ME flaw" wasn't anything to do with ME (or Wn9x). It was that 9x/ME was based on the old "load this huge OS on top of DOS" architecture. Win NT/Win2K/XP was the future and so when ME came out it was stillborn. Also, 9x/ME had the old Wn3x limitations (slightly improved) regarding system resources. Bottom line was that you couldn't run, say, 2 MS Office apps at once and have a stable system.
I switched to XP when I couldn't multi-task any more with 98SE. I needed to have 3 or 4 "big" apps running at once and didn't feel like rebooting every hour.
So ME was more a victim of bad timing than anything else.
Acetylene features the single & triple carbon bonds. It burns so hot because these bonds are inherently unstable. So how is it that this new substance, with these more-unstable-than-normal-carbon bonds, supposedly *stronger*?
Beware methadone overdose. Quoting from that page: "it stays in the body longer than other drugs". I've also heard that it stays in the body after it has stopped working, so you want more...leading, potentially, to overdoses. WA state pushes methadone (as it is cheaper) and has killed a bunch of people as a result.
When you type in the comment box on your machine, it will red-underline typos. Online is red-underlined (even now) on my computer. It (the red) does not show after the word is posted to a thread.
It is not about "support" -- personally I've never phoned Microsoft despite 30 years in the business. It is about deliberate breakage. Windows 8 won't run 16-bit Windows binaries -- major deliberate breakage, with no thunking layer, for some unknown reason. Does Ubuntu do this? I doubt it. Does Apple do this? Probably not as severely.
.
As the monopoly power Microsoft can do what they want. They, more than any other company, choose to deliberately break stuff (the ribbon(s) breaks the interface(s) we all know and love, just as the start tile fiasco does). The interesting thing is that Microsoft breaks stuff because they realized, I think before Windows 95, that they made things too well in the early years and so people simply chose not to upgrade at all. Steady, on-going, breakage is essential to get people sick of one product and anxious for the next one. Movies accomplish this with "trailers" (actually they are spoilers), and saturation advertising/showings. Think of how easy it will be for Microsoft to make a start menu that is better than the start screen -- they have paved the way for future upgrades with the downgrades of Vista & Windows 8.
Windows XP is the Plymouth Valiant of operating systems. Not the most elegant, but certainly one of the most durable. Too durable in fact. Windows 8 is like the Chevrolet Aveo -- "cheap, uncomfortable and disposable". [And Linux is like an International Scout -- surprisingly workable but relatively unknown].
Check out Figure 1 of the PDF. Minor annoyances: there is no legend, and one line label occurs where two lines are on top of each other. Major WTH: the green dashed "All Crashes" line is clearly taller than the blue dotted "Fatal Crashes" line until about 2004 when the number of Fatal Crashes became more than the All Crashes figure for the next 12 months. I stopped reading the PDF at this point.
Let's see. "Driving" in the Air Force involves flying from A to B and trying not to hit each other while trying to hit something else. How is this comparable to driving in rush hour traffic? Or in a new area? Or while late/in a hurry? You forget that air planes have 3 directions they can correct to. Someone tailgating has only one direction, and their movement in that direction has to exactly match the person in front of them. Throw in a cell phone call while tailgating and the situation becomes even less like flying. I think a better comparison would be to driving in NASCAR.
Wrote "How To Master The Art Of Selling". Amazon lists 16 titles on his page.
.
I should point out that I don't care about T.H. one way or the other. It just happened that one day I was trying to find out a bit about him via wiki, and came up empty.
I sympathize with the challenge wikipedia has of selecting a large number of things from an even larger number. I'm just curious how they determine what gets in.
Agreed. My appreciation, and use, of Wikipedia has surged in recent years as well.
.
I am a little disappointed that Mr. Wales didn't choose to comment on the criteria for adding someone or something to Wikipedia. I chose "Tom Hopkins" as an example of someone who is a relative "giant" in the motivational field yet is not in Wikipedia. There seems to be a very low barrier to entry for reality show "stars", though. Is Tom Hopkins really less significant to life than this monster?
I'm confused, Jimmy, and I think this is an area that should be talked about. On your About Wikipedia page you even mention how low the marginal cost is to add someone. Did Tom Hopkins (the speaker, not the soccer player) do something to offend? Jim Rohn, another famous motivational speaker is there. Even Tony Robbins is there (I kid, but if you look at body of work -- in this case, quotations -- Tony has hardly done anything in the way of _original_ quotations compared to Tom).
Exploring a bit further, Jim Rohn's mento, J. Earl Shoaff is in wiki, despite probably being unknown to 90% of slashdotters (the only group that matters). And Henri Poincare is there too, despite being uncredited by Einstein.
Isn't consistently (and taste) regarding who is added among the most important criteria in determining whether Wikipedia is credible and valuable?
Let me explain. First of all you have the math wrong. It should be 11.50 per hour * 88 hours per week * 52 weeks = $52,624. A very respectable sum indeed. Thank you, Amazon, for caring enough to let me work 88 hours per week. Many companies I've tried stopped me at 80. The lesson here is that persistence in job searches pays off !
So true. 14 years after he passed away there is a slashdot thread about one of his great movies. I think he also should be given credit for not cranking out 2 and 3 movies a year. Just 16 movies in 48 years, according to IMDB.
I have an almost opposite perspective. "2001" is one of only two Kubrick films I am impressed with(, the other being Full Metal Jacket). The "story, characters, plot" is generally an important criteria. In the case of "2001", however, one has to put oneself "back in the 60's" to appreciate that little thing called "doing it first". I saw it "live on the big screen" then and, much like the movie "Woodstock" that followed a few years later, it left a lasting impression.
.
"Star Wars", a few years after that, was really the second compelling space movie, yet it has survived and thrived, in a dandelion kind of way, thanks to the infinite promotional abilities of G.L. At the time I was impressed with Star Wars, but the franchise has not weathered well. If Stanley had tried to make 7 movies about "2001", they would have collectively suffered the fate.
Some things are ground breaking. "The Matrix" pulled the rug out from under "Star Wars 1: The Phantom Edit". Ground breaking things do that. Matrix 1 1/2 & 2 were about as bad as SW1. "You can't go home again"...but that doesn't take anything away from the original effort.
So I'm sorry Kubrickians but there is a REASON why nobody else has made a film in the vein of 2001, because anybody else would have been called to the carpet for making a movie with no plot, narrative, story
Here you are so right. You can't be groundbreaking in the same movie category twice, without creating a new category. The closest I've seen a movie come to this is Godfather two, after the blockbuster that was one. Yet even then there is not a lot new. I think two worked because Michael surprised us in being almost as compelling as Vito. In that sense, it was more like Toy Story Two, an equal to One but nothing new really.
, frankly if it wasn't for the (sadly too damned short) parts with HAL there really wouldn't be any real characters at all, just bland empty vessels.
Maybe you prefer the Star Wars 1 approach of cloning characters to fill the screen? For me, sparse is good. Works with dialog, and especially with music, in my view.
It reminds me of how nobody but Terrence Malick can make a Terrence Malick movie because only Terrence Malick gets a free pass from the critics to be as pretentious as he possibly can without getting called to the carpet.
And only G.L can....And only Steven Spielberg can... And only Michael Man can...While you are at it, you could say that only Robin Williams/Jim Carrey/Al Pacino can play an R.W./J.C./A.P. role...And then what have you said? Not much. Some actors/directors are known for a wide variety of roles (Marlon, Bale, Tommy Lee & Ron Howard come to mind) while the majority are mostly monochrome -- even De Niro, for all his greatness, is somewhat monochromatic.
Challenge for you -- come up with one or more movies that have held their appeal over 20 or 30 years of re-watching and movie making progression. Then consider that "2001" is just shy of 50 years out of print. For me, searching for something as equally enduring from the 60s leads me to "Lawrence of Arabia", at 51 years old. But if you didn't like Kubrick's 2.21 to 1 aspect ratio, you probably won't dig Lean's 2.20 to 1. And "2001"'s 160 minute running time looks nearly instantaneous compared to LoA's 187 to 228 minute verboseness. And what's the deal with all those quietly walking across the desert scenes?
I assumed you were the author being featured in this thread. Mea culpa. The commenter I linked to appears to be off the boil, yet Amazon is featuring her comment. Anyway, sorry to have thrown all that at you...
You're right, it is not just this book. There are also two sequels to the 2005 "Save the cat! : the last book on screenwriting you'll ever need". The 2007 "Save the cat! goes to the movies: the screenwriter's guide to every story ever told" and the 2009 "Save the cat! strikes back : more trouble for screenwriter's [sic] to get into-- and out of ".
Several hundred million computers doing pretty much the same thing is not nearly as complicated as a million species each doing their own thing. The internet is more like a single giant organism.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try. It was a file COPY process that took several months to complete...and UAC.
Hmmm, 1st quarter, 2nd quarter, 3rd quarter, 4th quarter
.
The main "ME flaw" wasn't anything to do with ME (or Wn9x). It was that 9x/ME was based on the old "load this huge OS on top of DOS" architecture. Win NT/Win2K/XP was the future and so when ME came out it was stillborn. Also, 9x/ME had the old Wn3x limitations (slightly improved) regarding system resources. Bottom line was that you couldn't run, say, 2 MS Office apps at once and have a stable system.
I switched to XP when I couldn't multi-task any more with 98SE. I needed to have 3 or 4 "big" apps running at once and didn't feel like rebooting every hour.
So ME was more a victim of bad timing than anything else.
Acetylene features the single & triple carbon bonds. It burns so hot because these bonds are inherently unstable. So how is it that this new substance, with these more-unstable-than-normal-carbon bonds, supposedly *stronger*?
Dark energy, the Ether of the 21st century.
Beware methadone overdose. Quoting from that page: "it stays in the body longer than other drugs". I've also heard that it stays in the body after it has stopped working, so you want more...leading, potentially, to overdoses. WA state pushes methadone (as it is cheaper) and has killed a bunch of people as a result.
When you type in the comment box on your machine, it will red-underline typos. Online is red-underlined (even now) on my computer. It (the red) does not show after the word is posted to a thread.
.
The same thing is happening right now in the online poker world.
BTW, why is "online" red-underlined by the slash?
It took balls to say that.
.
Sounds positively gruelling.
.
As the monopoly power Microsoft can do what they want. They, more than any other company, choose to deliberately break stuff (the ribbon(s) breaks the interface(s) we all know and love, just as the start tile fiasco does). The interesting thing is that Microsoft breaks stuff because they realized, I think before Windows 95, that they made things too well in the early years and so people simply chose not to upgrade at all. Steady, on-going, breakage is essential to get people sick of one product and anxious for the next one. Movies accomplish this with "trailers" (actually they are spoilers), and saturation advertising/showings. Think of how easy it will be for Microsoft to make a start menu that is better than the start screen -- they have paved the way for future upgrades with the downgrades of Vista & Windows 8.
Windows XP is the Plymouth Valiant of operating systems. Not the most elegant, but certainly one of the most durable. Too durable in fact. Windows 8 is like the Chevrolet Aveo -- "cheap, uncomfortable and disposable". [And Linux is like an International Scout -- surprisingly workable but relatively unknown].
Check out Figure 1 of the PDF. Minor annoyances: there is no legend, and one line label occurs where two lines are on top of each other. Major WTH: the green dashed "All Crashes" line is clearly taller than the blue dotted "Fatal Crashes" line until about 2004 when the number of Fatal Crashes became more than the All Crashes figure for the next 12 months. I stopped reading the PDF at this point.
Let's see. "Driving" in the Air Force involves flying from A to B and trying not to hit each other while trying to hit something else. How is this comparable to driving in rush hour traffic? Or in a new area? Or while late/in a hurry? You forget that air planes have 3 directions they can correct to. Someone tailgating has only one direction, and their movement in that direction has to exactly match the person in front of them. Throw in a cell phone call while tailgating and the situation becomes even less like flying. I think a better comparison would be to driving in NASCAR.
Or Rankin.
.
I should point out that I don't care about T.H. one way or the other. It just happened that one day I was trying to find out a bit about him via wiki, and came up empty.
I sympathize with the challenge wikipedia has of selecting a large number of things from an even larger number. I'm just curious how they determine what gets in.
.
I am a little disappointed that Mr. Wales didn't choose to comment on the criteria for adding someone or something to Wikipedia. I chose "Tom Hopkins" as an example of someone who is a relative "giant" in the motivational field yet is not in Wikipedia. There seems to be a very low barrier to entry for reality show "stars", though. Is Tom Hopkins really less significant to life than this monster?
I'm confused, Jimmy, and I think this is an area that should be talked about. On your About Wikipedia page you even mention how low the marginal cost is to add someone. Did Tom Hopkins (the speaker, not the soccer player) do something to offend? Jim Rohn, another famous motivational speaker is there. Even Tony Robbins is there (I kid, but if you look at body of work -- in this case, quotations -- Tony has hardly done anything in the way of _original_ quotations compared to Tom).
Exploring a bit further, Jim Rohn's mento, J. Earl Shoaff is in wiki, despite probably being unknown to 90% of slashdotters (the only group that matters). And Henri Poincare is there too, despite being uncredited by Einstein.
Isn't consistently (and taste) regarding who is added among the most important criteria in determining whether Wikipedia is credible and valuable?
Them? I was thinking it was something much more inanimate that we protect.
Let me explain. First of all you have the math wrong. It should be 11.50 per hour * 88 hours per week * 52 weeks = $52,624. A very respectable sum indeed. Thank you, Amazon, for caring enough to let me work 88 hours per week. Many companies I've tried stopped me at 80. The lesson here is that persistence in job searches pays off !
.
So true. 14 years after he passed away there is a slashdot thread about one of his great movies. I think he also should be given credit for not cranking out 2 and 3 movies a year. Just 16 movies in 48 years, according to IMDB.
.
"Star Wars", a few years after that, was really the second compelling space movie, yet it has survived and thrived, in a dandelion kind of way, thanks to the infinite promotional abilities of G.L. At the time I was impressed with Star Wars, but the franchise has not weathered well. If Stanley had tried to make 7 movies about "2001", they would have collectively suffered the fate.
Some things are ground breaking. "The Matrix" pulled the rug out from under "Star Wars 1: The Phantom Edit". Ground breaking things do that. Matrix 1 1/2 & 2 were about as bad as SW1. "You can't go home again"...but that doesn't take anything away from the original effort.
So I'm sorry Kubrickians but there is a REASON why nobody else has made a film in the vein of 2001, because anybody else would have been called to the carpet for making a movie with no plot, narrative, story
Here you are so right. You can't be groundbreaking in the same movie category twice, without creating a new category. The closest I've seen a movie come to this is Godfather two, after the blockbuster that was one. Yet even then there is not a lot new. I think two worked because Michael surprised us in being almost as compelling as Vito. In that sense, it was more like Toy Story Two, an equal to One but nothing new really.
, frankly if it wasn't for the (sadly too damned short) parts with HAL there really wouldn't be any real characters at all, just bland empty vessels.
Maybe you prefer the Star Wars 1 approach of cloning characters to fill the screen? For me, sparse is good. Works with dialog, and especially with music, in my view.
It reminds me of how nobody but Terrence Malick can make a Terrence Malick movie because only Terrence Malick gets a free pass from the critics to be as pretentious as he possibly can without getting called to the carpet.
And only G.L can....And only Steven Spielberg can... And only Michael Man can...While you are at it, you could say that only Robin Williams/Jim Carrey/Al Pacino can play an R.W./J.C./A.P. role...And then what have you said? Not much. Some actors/directors are known for a wide variety of roles (Marlon, Bale, Tommy Lee & Ron Howard come to mind) while the majority are mostly monochrome -- even De Niro, for all his greatness, is somewhat monochromatic.
Challenge for you -- come up with one or more movies that have held their appeal over 20 or 30 years of re-watching and movie making progression. Then consider that "2001" is just shy of 50 years out of print. For me, searching for something as equally enduring from the 60s leads me to "Lawrence of Arabia", at 51 years old. But if you didn't like Kubrick's 2.21 to 1 aspect ratio, you probably won't dig Lean's 2.20 to 1. And "2001"'s 160 minute running time looks nearly instantaneous compared to LoA's 187 to 228 minute verboseness. And what's the deal with all those quietly walking across the desert scenes?
I assumed you were the author being featured in this thread. Mea culpa. The commenter I linked to appears to be off the boil, yet Amazon is featuring her comment. Anyway, sorry to have thrown all that at you...
Any comment on this review of your book?
You're right, it is not just this book. There are also two sequels to the 2005 "Save the cat! : the last book on screenwriting you'll ever need". The 2007 "Save the cat! goes to the movies: the screenwriter's guide to every story ever told" and the 2009 "Save the cat! strikes back : more trouble for screenwriter's [sic] to get into-- and out of ".
I'm not sure that Pauling deserves the credit for megadoses of Vitamin C. Adele Davis was saying this several decades earlier.
Several hundred million computers doing pretty much the same thing is not nearly as complicated as a million species each doing their own thing. The internet is more like a single giant organism.