M.A.C.
If you could do that again in the correct way, I would like your comment more.
Sorry I know you hate abbreviations. Macintosh Apple Computer. Better?
No. Mac is an accepted abbreviation.
“Mac” is a shortening of “Macintosh”. “MAC” (or M.A.C. or M*A*C) is an abbreviation of the phrase “Macintosh Apple Computer.”
There.
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
What’s wrong with file name extensions? You can still name the file whatever you want (pretty much), there’s just a period followed by the file type afterward. What’s wrong with being able to see the file type? What’s “pesky” about it?
And you do realize that the file name extensions can be turned off, right?
Piglet sock confirmed.
ALLOL.
Okay. I find it more funny when I don’t fact check and then make a fool of myself by going off of my hazy memory on the given subject 😛.
It would never work out. Rey is 23.976 and Kylo is 24.
Sorry to pull a Dek Rollins but Kylo is like 28 and Rey is 19.
Sorry, I haven’t been here all day, but… what?
It’s a term I’ve coined for one who fact checks.
Oh… is there a particular instance that you’re referring to with it?
Memes. Can we stop with memes? Jesus.
I’m okay with certain memes. The one meme format I hate with a passion are image macros. A meme like this;
offends me on a level that I can’t even describe. But memes like these;
[images with nearly identical format]
are alright with me, and sometimes I even enjoy them.
Okay…
Man, I thought everybody would be annoyed by this thread.
Nevermind.
This is why you have so many freaking posts. How many of them are pointless one word answers?
90%.
Lol.
^I didn’t make it (though I was about to before I found it) 😄.
Doesn’t matter, perfect usage. I’m trying to give you props.
Thanks. I’m not trying to discourage you from complimenting me, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t mislead. All’s good 😄.
^I didn’t make it (though I was about to before I found it) 😄.
yhwx’s favorite mode of transportation:
It would never work out. Rey is 23.976 and Kylo is 24.
Sorry to pull a Dek Rollins but Kylo is like 28 and Rey is 19.
Sorry, I haven’t been here all day, but… what?
Running a film at it’s proper frame rate isn’t the same as watching a beat up film scan warts and all. Why on Earth should any film (or any digital video production for that matter) be run at a different frame rate than it was made to?
Hitler was right!
Hitler was right! I said that. It would be deeply offensive, and I would be ashamed to ever deny saying that statement.
You said “I allow” as if they couldn’t temp ban you without your consent, which of course isn’t true; the mods can ban you however they want. That’s what Frink was referring to.
I’ve never understood why an image only post such as something like this
is against the rules, even though there is text in the image, when the in-image text is exactly the sentence they want to respond with. How is that any different than
DO IT!
or just simply
DO IT!
?
Obviously when a completely unrelated image only post is made it should be enforced upon, but in the case of that Hansi post, other than the idea that six gifs may have been much, I don’t see anything wrong with it, because he was directly responding to someone with the text in the images.
2007 Final Cut (Scott’s final version):
- same content as Director’s Cut
- many technical improvements
It doesn’t have exactly the same content as the '92 DC, because it reinstates the violent bits that were only in the international theatrical release before.
Nope. Never heard of it until now.
They’re a little corny but undoubtedly better than the theatrical sequels.
After reading up a bit on Wikipedia, I think I’ll pass on that, for now at least. I probably wouldn’t be able to get past the absence of Peter Weller anyway.
Nope. Never heard of it until now.
^I’m pretty sure that’s right. As far as I know, a lot of DVDs would have overscan space around the edge (this was back when SD CRT televisions were still what everyone used, remember), because most TVs had plenty of overscan goin’ on. Just earlier this year I watched the Jurassic Park sequels off DVDs on an HDTV and I could see some extra black on the side.
RoboCop (1987) – A
Just wonderful. It’s probably an almost perfect film, for what it is.
RoboCop 2 (1990) – C+
There are some things that I like in it, but generally isn’t very good in my opinion. I guess the story it told just wasn’t the story I wanted to hear. Definitely not in my personal canon 😛.
Would those that pray, please pray for my father? He had a bad fall in our kitchen this morning. The took him to the hospital. He didn’t lose consciousness and he was’t bleeding on the outside. But when they did a cat scan, they found a little bit of bleeding in his head. They may have to do surgery. Thanks in advance
That’s awful. I’ll be sending prayers and good thoughts, Warb.
I want to go to this!
Just bumping to ask if there are any updates on the project. Anything new?
I don’t think Amadeus has ever had it’s theatrical version released in HD. There is a project on here that closely recreates the original version, though.
