http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=ig&q=movie:+theatres+[ZIPCODE]

---
--
Adam C.

[ Reply to This | # ]

it ceased to be a decent meta-search engine. I'm reasonably certain that I'm not the only person in the world who believes that Google is not the be-all and end-all of search engines, and Sherlock, before it became a rehash of Watson, used to be a great way to search multiple engines simultaneously. It certainly was much easier than loading a dozen or more web search pages in a browser.

Defacing Sherlock in the way they did is the thing that I resent most from One Infinite Loop. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. Honestly, if I'd have wanted to use Watson, then I'd have paid the shareware fee for it, and used it. The fact that it was absent from my hard drive speaks volumes about it's usefulness to me: none.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'd like to use Sherlock but the closest theater to my home doesn't use Moviefone (which is where the movie channel in Sherlock gets content). So, I use hollywood.com


[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.trinfinitysoftware.com/widgets.shtml

---
windrag | 700MHz iBook 16 VRAM G3 | Seagate 80GB HD | 640MB RAM | OS X 10.4.4

[ Reply to This | # ]

I set up a custom my.yahoo.com page years ago when I first moved to the area and wanted to view my cable tv guide. I added the local movies listings to my page just because I could. I got used to using it and since I have not really moved out of the area, I kept using it. Sherlock was nice and I used it a few times in the beginning but eventually, I reverted back to my.yahoo.com. Mainly because I use XP, Linux and Mac so my.yahoo.com works regardless of what computer I am on. Funny thing is, I have Satellite now and don't use the cable listings so all I use that page for is movie listings!

[ Reply to This | # ]

With all the channels available being very U.S.-centric, I don't think anybody outside the U.S. ever really cared about Sherlock.
I think I used it twice in my life and I wouldn't miss it if it completely disappeared.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never mind just Sherlock; Apple still hasn't released international versions of many Dashboard widgets! The phone book ones are completely useless outside the U.S., while the Ski Report only seems to work in the U.S. and Canada. Even the Dictionary is only available in American English.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Indeed.

Sherlock was absolutely useless outside the US in its default config. There were a few interesting plugins for 'foreigners', such as London traffic cameras... but I never got into having to launch a separate app just to get this info.

Dashboard is a different beast -- I use it regularly, it's just so handy to have that sort of info at the touch of a button. Apple's localisation of the default widgets does leave a lot to be desired. However, the barrier of entry to making new widgets is much lower than making Sherlock plugins, so there's a real wealth of extra localised widgets available.

Also, to be fair to the default Dictionary widget (and indeed OS X's system dictionary), it does handle all the British English I've thrown at it, although it's definitely coming from a US standpoint. Like the Oxford English Dictionary contains American spellings but marks them as [i][b]chiefly U.S.[/b][/i], OS X's dictionary labels UK spellings as [b][i]Brit.[/i][/b]

On a side-note, I really like the fact that English dictionaries (at least those in the UK) include international variations of the language. My inner lexicographical geek likes finding them out!

[ Reply to This | # ]

... and one of these days I might just remember that GeekLog on this site doesn't talk bbCode.

*bangs head on desk*

[ Reply to This | # ]

I didn't even realise it was still installed in Tiger!

---
http://caius.name/

I'm just a mac baby :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

According to Wikipedia, it will be removed from 10.5 Leopard.

I've always thought it was such a great idea but I have never used it. I'm sure I'm not alone here. The thing is, I don't why I never used it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Since when is Wikipedia considered an "authoritative source" on anything? I don't doubt that Sherlock will be yanked out but quoting Wikipedia is like saying you heard it at the barber shop...just saying...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yet another "Since when" criticism of a Wikipedia reference, sigh. Consider that solipsism only mentioned what (s)he discovered on Wikipedia about Sherlock, without any claim that it was authoritative information.

Seems friendlier to question someone's intention before making assumed implications about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You should really do some research.... There was an article in the NY Times several months back that detailed the results of a study of wikipedia's accuracy.

The study found that in most cases it (wikipedia) was just as accurate, or even more accurate, than The Encyclopedia Brittanica. I beleiieve that it ended up that TEB had an error ratio of approximately 3 errors per 1000 facts, and wikipedia had approximately 4 errors per 1000 facts. The type of errors were different though. TEB's errors were mostly omissions (due to a longer publishing / editing cycle), while wikipedia's were typically opinions being listed as facts and defacements of paricularly contentious topics.

So yes, wikipedia can be an authoritative source, you just need to be careful when using it as a source for certain topics.

Here is a link to a slashdot post on the subject.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You should take your own advice. Britannica gave a very lengthy and in-depth response to the "study."

The conclusion: A bunch of agendized journalists did the study with biased reporting and slipshod research methods in a fairly clumsy attempt to pump up Wikipedia.

The sad thing is, a lie can generally be told in a sound bite while the truth takes a few paragraphs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I use Vindigo and moves.com.

Vindigo is particularly helpful, because if you get to the theater too late to get a good seat, you can check the time of the next showing, or even other moves on at the same theater.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Last opened in Finder says 28/03/05, so it's over a year since I last opened that App - and it was most likely because I was asked to test it as part of my AppleSeed involvement...

Version 1 was cool, quick, and easy to extend. Then it startet to blow up.. and now it's a waste of time.

---
/Marook

[ Reply to This | # ]

Or it was when you installed Tiger. Mine has a date around March too, which would have been around Tiger's official release. Does Finder have a "never opened?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did Apple ever produce any non U.S channels? Here in the UK I stopped looking after a couple of years. There were a couple of nifty road traffic camera plug-ins from third parties, but that was about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I used to use it much more frequently to look for movies but more recently have relied on MovieFone.com and Fandango.com for this. At one time, I was using Sherlock quite a bit to keep track of eBay auctions that I was watching.

---
"I have seen the evils of procrastination, and I vow to change my ways tomorrow."

[ Reply to This | # ]

I recently started using a customized google homepage (very useful!) including a google movies module, which lists the top 3 results for my local theaters. The rest of the showtimes in my zip code are a quick link away.
Before that, I used yahoo movies. Both google and yahoo seem good about including all the theaters around (with the exception of the local college's film society).
I never used sherlock in the first place. What did it have that you can't get from a simple web search?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Had a couple of other useful channels like applecare, but most of the channels stopped loading properly and w/ dashboard, it just sort of died off.

---
VGZ:
Otaku, Fanfic author, and Mac Fanatic

[ Reply to This | # ]

I only use it for translating foreign text into something I can read.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Created: Feb. 14, 2002 7:44 PM
Modified: Sept. 15, 2003 12:17 PM
Last Opened: Sept 16, 2003 11:17 AM

It's not in my favorites list.

[ Reply to This | # ]