Monday, January 30, 2006
Blast from the Creepy Past
I admit, I had to code stuff for Windows 3.1 (I can't call it developping, it is more aking to hacking the crap out of the system) and I sure do not have dear memory of the time.
One creepy detail (which is still kind of relevant now) is terminology for common things. When everyone think of the mouse pointer as a (...) pointer, MS called it a cursor. Just because. What about the blinkyblink thingy where the text is supposed to come out of when you type? (that was a perfectly grammatically sounds sentences, wasn't it?) Well, they called that a caret. What a carrot? nope, caret. Just because too. Or maybe because cursor was already taken.
One of the most fantastic feature of Windows was that, for some unimaginable reason, an application could hide the Mouse Cursor. To do so, just call the ShowCursor function as is:
ShowCursor(false);
To show it again,
ShowCursor(true);
That was simple.
Whare's the catch?
Also, I just checked, in XP the mouse cursor is called pointer (control panel, mouse) and the caret is called cursor. But still, the API is ShowCursor() and ShowCaret(). Mmm... caret soup! ¶ 4:17 PM 0 comments
I admit, I had to code stuff for Windows 3.1 (I can't call it developping, it is more aking to hacking the crap out of the system) and I sure do not have dear memory of the time.
One creepy detail (which is still kind of relevant now) is terminology for common things. When everyone think of the mouse pointer as a (...) pointer, MS called it a cursor. Just because. What about the blinkyblink thingy where the text is supposed to come out of when you type? (that was a perfectly grammatically sounds sentences, wasn't it?) Well, they called that a caret. What a carrot? nope, caret. Just because too. Or maybe because cursor was already taken.
One of the most fantastic feature of Windows was that, for some unimaginable reason, an application could hide the Mouse Cursor. To do so, just call the ShowCursor function as is:
ShowCursor(false);
To show it again,
ShowCursor(true);
That was simple.
Whare's the catch?
- Hiding the cursor would hide it for the whole Windows desktop. Obviously making other application kinda hard to work with at the same time. Negating all the (feeble) benefit of multitaking in Windows 3.1 (I know, I'm high, multitaking in Windows 3.1 is like snow in Hawaii)
- You must call ShowCursor(true) exactly as many time as you did the opposite ShowCursor(false). That one sucks. I guess you have to be careful, or at least know how to count.
- If your application crashes while the cursor (aka pointer) is hidden, well, you're boned. If Windows is not crashed, well, it's pretty unusable. No more visible mouse.
Also, I just checked, in XP the mouse cursor is called pointer (control panel, mouse) and the caret is called cursor. But still, the API is ShowCursor() and ShowCaret(). Mmm... caret soup! ¶ 4:17 PM 0 comments
I was wrong
Crap. Big Mamma's house #1 at box office report after this weekend. Beating Nanny McPhee 2:1. What a load of crap. People will swallow shit by the boatload and still be happy to be charged $8 a piece. Not that Annapolis or Nanny McPhee would be so inherently better. But as least I would not be as wrong. ¶ 9:34 AM 0 comments
Crap. Big Mamma's house #1 at box office report after this weekend. Beating Nanny McPhee 2:1. What a load of crap. People will swallow shit by the boatload and still be happy to be charged $8 a piece. Not that Annapolis or Nanny McPhee would be so inherently better. But as least I would not be as wrong. ¶ 9:34 AM 0 comments
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Newsflash: lacrosse is here
Whatever lacrosse is. Yeah, like hockey minus the ice. Just as much kick in the face action. Probably a local thing though. (local as in PDX). With season tickets as low as $90. It's probably as dumb and pointless as something else, it'll probably be a great success.
Now I'd love to see more rugby. That's not one of those sissy sports. That's real. ¶ 6:29 PM 0 comments
Whatever lacrosse is. Yeah, like hockey minus the ice. Just as much kick in the face action. Probably a local thing though. (local as in PDX). With season tickets as low as $90. It's probably as dumb and pointless as something else, it'll probably be a great success.
Now I'd love to see more rugby. That's not one of those sissy sports. That's real. ¶ 6:29 PM 0 comments
Movie Review: Big Mamma's House 2
How can I review a movie that's not out yet? Simple, I watch the preview. On TV. Every 10 minutes.
Don't see it. It surely not as good as the first one (have not seen that one either) but the first one is a piece of crap too. It's ok to make transgender/fat jokes because I'm black kind of movie. Inane (lack of) plot.
All crap.
It does not matter what I say, flocks of idiotic sheep will flock to the theater. I predict #2 at box office, just behind Nanny McPhee (the ugly looking Mary Poppins) ¶ 6:17 PM 0 comments
How can I review a movie that's not out yet? Simple, I watch the preview. On TV. Every 10 minutes.
Don't see it. It surely not as good as the first one (have not seen that one either) but the first one is a piece of crap too. It's ok to make transgender/fat jokes because I'm black kind of movie. Inane (lack of) plot.
All crap.
It does not matter what I say, flocks of idiotic sheep will flock to the theater. I predict #2 at box office, just behind Nanny McPhee (the ugly looking Mary Poppins) ¶ 6:17 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Quick note to advertisers
Especially when shooting a car commercial, especially when the car is supposed to be kinda sporty, it is not advised to show close up of the car do a sudden lane change. Just witnessed it on the latest Lexus IS250/350 commercial. No matter how sporty and good handling the car is, it looks like a huge lump with body roll and shows an obvious reluctance to change direction.
Gee, you can only do that when you advertise a formula one car. Maybe a BMW M3. But everyone knows your Lexus is only sporty-looking, it's just another bland soft luxury car. ¶ 9:59 PM 0 comments
Especially when shooting a car commercial, especially when the car is supposed to be kinda sporty, it is not advised to show close up of the car do a sudden lane change. Just witnessed it on the latest Lexus IS250/350 commercial. No matter how sporty and good handling the car is, it looks like a huge lump with body roll and shows an obvious reluctance to change direction.
Gee, you can only do that when you advertise a formula one car. Maybe a BMW M3. But everyone knows your Lexus is only sporty-looking, it's just another bland soft luxury car. ¶ 9:59 PM 0 comments
Monday, January 23, 2006
Buy a DVD?
I'm already not sure I'd buy a DVD. After all, I would want to be sure I want to watch it somewhere around 4 or 5 times or more, just to make it worthwhile compared to renting it from my local blockbuster hollywood video, several times.
Then again, Netflix is there to save me from the evil of poor selection and weird looking (and smelling) patrons. Not to mention teenage workforce who don't give a shit.
Back to the original question: buy a DVD, I don't think so. Why then all the advertisement for B-grade movies all over the place? Well, it's a subliminal message: it's out on DVD, go rent it.
Now, does anyone actually go buy it? And does anyone has ever really bought the PSP version? Now I really don't have an answer for that. ¶ 9:17 PM 0 comments
I'm already not sure I'd buy a DVD. After all, I would want to be sure I want to watch it somewhere around 4 or 5 times or more, just to make it worthwhile compared to renting it from my local blockbuster hollywood video, several times.
Then again, Netflix is there to save me from the evil of poor selection and weird looking (and smelling) patrons. Not to mention teenage workforce who don't give a shit.
Back to the original question: buy a DVD, I don't think so. Why then all the advertisement for B-grade movies all over the place? Well, it's a subliminal message: it's out on DVD, go rent it.
Now, does anyone actually go buy it? And does anyone has ever really bought the PSP version? Now I really don't have an answer for that. ¶ 9:17 PM 0 comments
Friday, January 20, 2006
Arrr! I'll take some music with that hook!
Really?
Or maybe buying music online is becoming mainstream (like buying from amazon.com). Or the fantastic success of iPod+iTunes combo is snowballing. Or people are getting lazy, finding music on P2P is increasingly painful/risky (RIAA after you, Virus, spyware); P2P's never been too mainstream anyway, it's kind of a geeky nerdy stuff. Or the initial number was so low that tripling it is no big deal.
Wait. A little bit of all. But the tripling thing is a good suspect. From $380 mil to $1.2 bil. You'd think that's a big number in itself. But in a typical PC World fashion, you don't get any point of reference (like total Music sales?, total entertainment industry?)
Wait. It's world wide sales number. And now yes, it sounds totally ridiculous. The average person on earth went from buying 0.05% of one track per year to 0.15% of one track per year.
Now really. Thinking piracy is recessing is worse than wishful thinking, it's appalingly stupid. ¶ 1:30 PM 0 comments
Digital Music Sales Triple in 2005Increase could be a sign that anti-piracy efforts are working.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,124434,00.asp
Really?
Or maybe buying music online is becoming mainstream (like buying from amazon.com). Or the fantastic success of iPod+iTunes combo is snowballing. Or people are getting lazy, finding music on P2P is increasingly painful/risky (RIAA after you, Virus, spyware); P2P's never been too mainstream anyway, it's kind of a geeky nerdy stuff. Or the initial number was so low that tripling it is no big deal.
Wait. A little bit of all. But the tripling thing is a good suspect. From $380 mil to $1.2 bil. You'd think that's a big number in itself. But in a typical PC World fashion, you don't get any point of reference (like total Music sales?, total entertainment industry?)
Wait. It's world wide sales number. And now yes, it sounds totally ridiculous. The average person on earth went from buying 0.05% of one track per year to 0.15% of one track per year.
Now really. Thinking piracy is recessing is worse than wishful thinking, it's appalingly stupid. ¶ 1:30 PM 0 comments
Thursday, January 19, 2006
EVDO Rocks!
Especially when it's company paid. I kind of weaseled into getting this Verizon EVDO pccard. Now I get broadband on the road, in the train, in the rain, does not include green eggs and ham though. I'll take the high speed connection nonetheless.
Can you hear me now? Nope, it's for data, dude. ¶ 12:36 PM 0 comments
Especially when it's company paid. I kind of weaseled into getting this Verizon EVDO pccard. Now I get broadband on the road, in the train, in the rain, does not include green eggs and ham though. I'll take the high speed connection nonetheless.
Can you hear me now? Nope, it's for data, dude. ¶ 12:36 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
American Idle
Tonight is the first night. It's actually running EST I guess. The new season of American Idle. Idol. iDol? No, that would be an Apple product.
Get ready for another edition of bad singing, dreadful acting, poor ethical standards (and really high on drugs judges, no I'm not looking at you Paula) With totally lacking credibility.
The only regret is that never-smiling annoying terrible singer/actor/performer Scott Savol (or was it Sabol?, Savon?, Avon?) can't reenter again.
Maybe this year they'll give a chance to a black chick, because last year, the only one that could consistently sing (just could sing, sometimes outstandingly) were the black chicks (oops, PC filter: african american females) I'm pretty sure this was a coincidence, what was not was the stupid rally behind Blondish-no personality chick and I'm-a-rocker-but-I-can-t-sing-to-save-my-life dude. Appalling results. But what did I expect, this is TV, and this is Fox.
Rejoyce and brace yourself because tonight show is 2 hours long (and one of the cheapest to produce, auditions, lots of laugh, little content, alot of stupid Simon comments. I hope he's in a bad mood) ¶ 6:33 PM 0 comments
Tonight is the first night. It's actually running EST I guess. The new season of American Idle. Idol. iDol? No, that would be an Apple product.
Get ready for another edition of bad singing, dreadful acting, poor ethical standards (and really high on drugs judges, no I'm not looking at you Paula) With totally lacking credibility.
The only regret is that never-smiling annoying terrible singer/actor/performer Scott Savol (or was it Sabol?, Savon?, Avon?) can't reenter again.
Maybe this year they'll give a chance to a black chick, because last year, the only one that could consistently sing (just could sing, sometimes outstandingly) were the black chicks (oops, PC filter: african american females) I'm pretty sure this was a coincidence, what was not was the stupid rally behind Blondish-no personality chick and I'm-a-rocker-but-I-can-t-sing-to-save-my-life dude. Appalling results. But what did I expect, this is TV, and this is Fox.
Rejoyce and brace yourself because tonight show is 2 hours long (and one of the cheapest to produce, auditions, lots of laugh, little content, alot of stupid Simon comments. I hope he's in a bad mood) ¶ 6:33 PM 0 comments
Monday, January 09, 2006
Bender Rules!
Hey, do I preach to you when you lie stoned in the gutter? No! So Beat it!¶ 8:36 PM 0 comments
Friday, January 06, 2006
When I die...
I know everything about the 70's, I was born in the 70's. At least then, a man could speak his mind. ¶ 10:14 PM 0 comments
When I die, I wanna be buried face down, so anyone who doesn't like me can kiss my ass.For some reasons, I've been watching this 70's stupid show, and Red is by far the funniest character. This is the funniest quote from him.
-Red Foreman
I know everything about the 70's, I was born in the 70's. At least then, a man could speak his mind. ¶ 10:14 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
No Thanks
Innovative marketing ploy: lure you with something you don't want. If I understand correctly, Subway is having some kind of sweepstake where you can get some gym subscription. There's a picture of a scratch and discover your price: lose weight.
I'd scream: "Are you calling me fat? Are you saying I need a diet?"
That's fantastic. However un-PC that is, it is well known that on TV, people just want to see young, slim, fit, healthy people. Especially in commercials. You want the viewer to identify to a positive image.
I don't see how telling me that I'm fat and I need more exercise will help them sell more (icky tasting) sandwiches. ¶ 9:12 PM 0 comments
Innovative marketing ploy: lure you with something you don't want. If I understand correctly, Subway is having some kind of sweepstake where you can get some gym subscription. There's a picture of a scratch and discover your price: lose weight.
I'd scream: "Are you calling me fat? Are you saying I need a diet?"
That's fantastic. However un-PC that is, it is well known that on TV, people just want to see young, slim, fit, healthy people. Especially in commercials. You want the viewer to identify to a positive image.
I don't see how telling me that I'm fat and I need more exercise will help them sell more (icky tasting) sandwiches. ¶ 9:12 PM 0 comments
