When Bungie was Bungie, they weren't an "indie" game company. Their Myth series was mainstream (and excellent). They were a smaller company that let themselves be purchased by Microsoft.
Being "indie" does free up some creative license, usually at the expense of profit. I prefer good over profitable, but most businesses don't.
CEO making $75,000 a year? I'm a tech-writer/instructional designer and I get paid more than that.
I don't that the guy who writes the user manual and develops the story line for the tutorial (me) should make more than the guy in charge of everybody, sorry.
So the game companies are beginning to realize that, although they are a game company and hire a lot of young guys who get into programming because they took some video game design courses, they still have be a functioning business to survive...interesting!
I tell my kids that video game development is a good entry into software development because the two should be indistinguishable. Writing code for WoW shouldn't really be much different than writing code for Microsoft Office. The problem I've noticed is people that choose video game development don't think they are in the business of making software and thus don't follow the established business rules that work for any type of software.
Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Lucas, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
I keep seeing the claim it looks good on Blu-ray. Every time I go into Best Buy, they have that thing playing and it looks like a really bad video game. I saw it an an IMAX, and don't remember it looking like a video game at all.
but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.
Avatar is a movie that, after you let it sink in and you've thought about it for a while, brings you to the harsh realization that it pretty much sucked.
It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!"
I don't mind borrowing themes from other movies (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves) because every movie can be traced back to a previous movie's use of a classic theme.
All its 3-D grandness turned out to be one giant, calculated distraction of how bad the movie really is. Piranha 3-D doesn't use 3-D to distract from the awfulness, rather they use bikinis. I'd watch Piranha 3-D twice, but I doubt I could sit through that James Cameron self-orgy again.
I'm interested in hearing what movies you actually think are any good?
There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.
I'm not. I'm tired of bad movies being popular and good movies not being able to be produced because they won't be popular enough to justify their costs. It's all part of the continuing political climate in this country of glorifying anti-intellectualism. There are good sci-fi movies, that after you've had a while to let them sink in, don't suck, like District 9.
I live in Austin, where there are five (that I can count) independent school districts, each with a different tax rate.
In Wake County, the COUNTY runs the schools and allocates funds. It doesn't matter what the property tax is in your part of town, and all the property taxes are mixed together and then doled out where necessary.
And in Hays county they don't mix all the property taxes. The county runs the two school districts and taxes the citizens differently, depending on which school district you live in. My district pays.07% less than the other one, which is why we bought here and not over there.
If you want to speak of a vicious cycle, how about "Bad schools have bad students, which tend to drive away all but the worst of teachers, which produces bad students."
Bad teachers produce far fewer bad students than bad parents.
So not being born in a particular state prohibits you from being from that state?
Bush went to school in Texas from Kindergarten to 9th grade. He finished high school (because he had to follow his political father around) not in Texas. He then went to a couple Ivy league colleges and then, wait for it...moved back to Texas in 1968, where he's lived ever since (minus 8 years as President). That makes at least 44 years of his life living in Texas (not sure when he moved back to Texas after being born in MA, but at a minimum he was there for Kindergarten at age 6). Had he not been President for 8 years, he most likely would be up to 52 years in Texas.
"Bad" schools are bad because the quality of students is low. They are also bad because they are in bad parts of town with little to no property tax income. It's a vicious, inescapable cycle.
There are some "good" schools that aren't half as effective as teaching as some of the "bad" schools...they just have better students (and more property tax revenue), so they don't have to teach as hard. As an educator, my mantra is "the quality of your education is what you make of it", which includes parental involvement. Some kids don't have that, and that sucks. Throwing more money at teachers doesn't fix that.
Because children of illegal immigrants are automatically illegal themselves? Interesting take on the 14th amendment (if they were indeed born here).
Also, children of immigrants don't deserve the same posh outfit as other kids in the school? Sorry immigrant, you don't get to use the pool or the pizza oven!
But there is merit to making a place kids want to be (an attractive campus as opposed to a windowless cinder block). Said place could be made for several hundred million fewer dollars, however.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked your rant, however I'd argue that JK Rowling's writing became exponentially better with each book.
With Stephen King, I think we all loved it when it was new to us...then we grew up and recognized the pulp fiction for what it was.
I've read several Clancy books and they all read about the same (mediocre) to me. I really haven't seen much progress or decline.
When Bungie was Bungie, they weren't an "indie" game company. Their Myth series was mainstream (and excellent). They were a smaller company that let themselves be purchased by Microsoft.
Being "indie" does free up some creative license, usually at the expense of profit. I prefer good over profitable, but most businesses don't.
The noise from the electric motor (the whine) is as loud as an underpowered Corolla's tiny 4-cylinder gas engine.
I suggest we all buy those "fart-cannon" over-sized loud mufflers that are popular with people in the demographic of age 18-19.
I dunno, I think Dragon Age: Origins did pretty well in reviews, irrespective of the bad graphics.
CEO making $75,000 a year? I'm a tech-writer/instructional designer and I get paid more than that.
I don't that the guy who writes the user manual and develops the story line for the tutorial (me) should make more than the guy in charge of everybody, sorry.
So the game companies are beginning to realize that, although they are a game company and hire a lot of young guys who get into programming because they took some video game design courses, they still have be a functioning business to survive...interesting!
I tell my kids that video game development is a good entry into software development because the two should be indistinguishable. Writing code for WoW shouldn't really be much different than writing code for Microsoft Office. The problem I've noticed is people that choose video game development don't think they are in the business of making software and thus don't follow the established business rules that work for any type of software.
Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Lucas, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
See what I did there?
I keep seeing the claim it looks good on Blu-ray. Every time I go into Best Buy, they have that thing playing and it looks like a really bad video game. I saw it an an IMAX, and don't remember it looking like a video game at all.
but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.
Avatar is a movie that, after you let it sink in and you've thought about it for a while, brings you to the harsh realization that it pretty much sucked.
It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!"
I don't mind borrowing themes from other movies (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves) because every movie can be traced back to a previous movie's use of a classic theme.
All its 3-D grandness turned out to be one giant, calculated distraction of how bad the movie really is. Piranha 3-D doesn't use 3-D to distract from the awfulness, rather they use bikinis. I'd watch Piranha 3-D twice, but I doubt I could sit through that James Cameron self-orgy again.
I'm interested in hearing what movies you actually think are any good?
There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.
I'm not. I'm tired of bad movies being popular and good movies not being able to be produced because they won't be popular enough to justify their costs. It's all part of the continuing political climate in this country of glorifying anti-intellectualism. There are good sci-fi movies, that after you've had a while to let them sink in, don't suck, like District 9.
Where do you live?
I live in Austin, where there are five (that I can count) independent school districts, each with a different tax rate.
In Wake County, the COUNTY runs the schools and allocates funds. It doesn't matter what the property tax is in your part of town, and all the property taxes are mixed together and then doled out where necessary.
And in Hays county they don't mix all the property taxes. The county runs the two school districts and taxes the citizens differently, depending on which school district you live in. My district pays .07% less than the other one, which is why we bought here and not over there.
If you want to speak of a vicious cycle, how about "Bad schools have bad students, which tend to drive away all but the worst of teachers, which produces bad students."
Bad teachers produce far fewer bad students than bad parents.
I think one of my favorite things about Windows 95 was the music video for Weezer's Buddy Holly on the install disc.
Wait, you actually got a sound card to work with Windows 95?
Windows 95 was cheap. That was it's only real benefit.
Well, it was better than Win3.1 and it was more Mac-like (a moniker they still chase to this day).
Should have hired somebody from Milton Security.
If it performs as poorly as my Samsung Blu-ray player, than I'm avoiding this one like the plague.
2) George W. Bush was not born in Texas.
So not being born in a particular state prohibits you from being from that state?
Bush went to school in Texas from Kindergarten to 9th grade. He finished high school (because he had to follow his political father around) not in Texas. He then went to a couple Ivy league colleges and then, wait for it...moved back to Texas in 1968, where he's lived ever since (minus 8 years as President). That makes at least 44 years of his life living in Texas (not sure when he moved back to Texas after being born in MA, but at a minimum he was there for Kindergarten at age 6). Had he not been President for 8 years, he most likely would be up to 52 years in Texas.
He's Texan.
Is this really that hard?
Ah, I see. I posted pretty much the same thing. I read your post as discrediting the critique, but you haven't actually done that.
I don't like the law either, and I'll complain about it, but the real recourse is to repeal it.
You brought up another problem. What's wrong with using a 20 year old algebra text? I took algebra 26 years ago. Is it all invalid now?
"Bad" schools are bad because the quality of students is low. They are also bad because they are in bad parts of town with little to no property tax income. It's a vicious, inescapable cycle.
There are some "good" schools that aren't half as effective as teaching as some of the "bad" schools...they just have better students (and more property tax revenue), so they don't have to teach as hard. As an educator, my mantra is "the quality of your education is what you make of it", which includes parental involvement. Some kids don't have that, and that sucks. Throwing more money at teachers doesn't fix that.
Because children of illegal immigrants are automatically illegal themselves? Interesting take on the 14th amendment (if they were indeed born here).
Also, children of immigrants don't deserve the same posh outfit as other kids in the school? Sorry immigrant, you don't get to use the pool or the pizza oven!
But there is merit to making a place kids want to be (an attractive campus as opposed to a windowless cinder block). Said place could be made for several hundred million fewer dollars, however.
Having grown up in Southern California I know that any vertical surface in a school is a magnet for graffiti.
"Affordance" is the term you are looking for. The Design of Everyday Things is the best book ever.
Adult stem cells are sub-par replacements for embryonic stem cells.
And yet, despite your claim, almost all of the big advances from stem cell research has come from non-embryonic lines of cells.
Perhaps those gains are made because the non-embryonic lines of cells don't have moral roadblocks every fifty meters?
Federal funds used to conduct research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway...
Why distinguish?
Because it was the manifest and obvious intent of Congress to forbid the Federal funding of such research.
Mother of all tautologies!
So you are saying the response to the criticism that the law is dumb is because the law says what it says?
Think of the children (that are being thrown away anyway).
Does it really shock you that the people arguing AGAINST STEM CELL RESEARCH don't have a clue what they're actually arguing about?
There, fixed that for you.