You're missing the point, it's shiny, and Steve has given it the stamp of cool and he's the only person on the planet officially allowed to do that, so he should know cool when he sees it. That should be enough for you. Or are you a commie?/sarcasm.
I wasn't aware Google = Government, with a few exceptions like China. Any closed source application can be tracking you and you'd never know. Chances are Apple are doing the same in all sorts of ways, for the same reasons Google do....targeted advertising. They want to know more about you so they can put an advert up which is more likely to appeal to your wallet opening tendencies.
At least with Google you don't need to use Google apps to access the services, you can use open or closed source third party apps like Firefox which has an addon to limit what information Google get from you when you do use their services. More than that, you can choose not to use Google at all. With the iPhone Apple ensure that some of their apps are the ONLY option. They won't allow any competing web browser so your stuck with theirs, regardless of whether they've stuffed it with spyware or not. Same goes with iTunes, do you believe they don't track what media you have? Are you really that naieve?
Do Microsoft like or not like monopolies? They also seem a tad confused on the subject. On one hand they see no problem with their own monopolies being good for the customer, yet complain when it's other companies monopolies, that they're bad for the consumer. Is there an answer to this question that does not make Microsoft hypocrites?
Duplicating functionality? I wonder if "copy & paste" could be described as that? Maybe that's why it was missing from the iPhone when it first appeared. Then again, if it could be classed as that, Apple seem to be contradicting their own rules./sarcasm.
Seriously, this is just one in a long list of stories which suggest Apple are barmy. Each new example of a Stalin-like appreciation of freedom sees another few previously loyal Apple customers cringe and refuse to defend Apple as they once did. People have tipping points they may not even recognize, at some point they will say "enough is enough" and take a stand against the authority figure they see as unnecessarily restricting some free choices.
Maybe Apple believe they have the smart phone market sewn up, and between the lock in and heavy marketing they can afford to piss customers off. That may well change when Android has a few years maturity on the market and Apple find themselves a niche option for people willing to pay the Apple premium. Maybe by that time the damage will be done, and Apple will have plenty of disgruntled ex-customers who won't buy Apple again, the same way Microsoft have created a LOT of ex-Windows users who won't touch Windows again.
Scientology does differ from the major religions in one obvious way, it's target audience. Religions target the poor, weak, downtrodden people who's lives are daily hell for a number of reasons, and promise them that things are reversed in Heaven, that they will be kings or queens in the afterlife if they just obey. The meek shall inherit the Earth? What a brilliant defense against an uprising. You really have to credit the leaders with covering every base to ensure their continued reign.
This is why religious leaders hold more influence among the people in poor countries. It's why some of the gullible can be convinced to die for the cause, to get the reward of a better afterlife quicker doing God's will.
Scientology targets the people with money to fund them.
I don't know much about Judaism so I'll assume you're right, but also point out that it seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Tradition seems to win over common sense in most cases. I know many religions have different branches who all believe mostly the same thing by differ on minor points. This seems to be an excuse for man to kill man, because they don't conform exactly to our views they need to die; it's always the loving caring religions huh?
There are revisionist movements of course, but these are fringe groups who are having very little headway against the entrenched status quo. Look at the outrage when a woman is appointed to a high position, or God forbid a homosexual. How many congregations have boycotted, threatened splits etc because a gay man was appointed? The status quo are stuck in the dark ages and the people see it. The revisionists see their religion is becoming irrelevant in the modern world and are trying to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st Century but their efforts may well be far too little, far too late to save it.
History is of course written by the victors, edited to portray them in a more heroic light where the excesses were all done for the common good, and most of all "in the name of their God". For centuries the average people couldn't read or write, so they were reliant on gatekeepers interpreting stories. For a while the Church didn't want followers being able to read the bible in their native language, so that they could maintain the monopoly on the translators jobs, which many now see for what it is; control.
Plenty of lessons have been learned from this like PR people waxing lyrical in news stories, with barely a hint of truth included, or IT companies ensuring the end users are forced to use THEIR products or services, to ensure THEY stay in control. None of these examples have been good for end users, they have been good for those who profit from deceit, lies, manipulation and control. The longer they get away with it, the more the feel they're entitled to it and seek to crush or discredit those who question it.
Plenty of people use history selectively to support their aims, while ignoring other parts of it which contradict their assessments. As the say, people who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. The same applies to those who create a conclusion and seek to find only the parts of history that support it.
People can convince themselves of anything if they really want to. I don't doubt that after a while they really believe they're doing God's work, which really amounts to the same thing. The more power they have, the more they can achieve for their chosen God, the more influence they can have to further the message. They get caught up in both the doctrine and the tradition, and seek to use that as an excuse to hide behind, rather than see where it needs to change to reflect modern times. They will defend their right to discriminate while claiming to be accepting and welcoming, the catch obviously is obedience. If you are obedient to them and their ideas, they will accept you.
Are they cynical? I'd answer that by saying if you haven't noticed for yourself, you may be too close to the subject to see the truth. When you're surrounded day and night by something, your objective judgment on it evaporates. It becomes harder and harder to recognize some of what you once took as solid fact for what it is, superstition and no more real than any other fiction book on the bookshelves. Any time you start to question it you'll have someone in your face telling you that you're in need of spiritual help. If you're on the outside, you can see the absurdities these people have managed to convince themselves of, and all you can do is laugh and pity them.
So the concept of excommunication is a figment of our imagination? How many victims of sexual abuse by the clergy have been either excommunicated or threatened with it if they dare to speak out? They are threatened with being exiled from everything they know and hold dear. In exile they are forbidden from having contact with others who are obedient, including family and friends. Their status is announced to the rest of the flock, so the peer pressure adds to the power to stay obedient or be exiled.
All religions and cults have that little loophole covered, if you leave or turn against our instructions you will be punished in some way. If you're obedient you'll never face these punishments. It's the same idea as closing the loophole on worshiping other Gods.
In some religions, leaving the faith is punishable by death. If that's not a separation from your friends and family I don't know what is; unless of course "death" is also being applied to them too. That being the case, you'll find out soon enough if it was all a scam or not, or whether there's a doorman at the gates of Heaven looking down his clipboard to see if you picked the correct religion to join, and did all the rituals well enough. Not only that but he has to check your life's history to make sure you walked the walk, not just appeared on the chosen day for your weekly dress ups and went through the motions.
A religion is only a cult that's had more time to gather in more suckers. Every religion starts as a cult. They all have funny rituals as ways to worship their chosen invisible man. The major world religions all started at a time when mankind knew little science, so the stories and explanations about the world around them as told by preachers sounded believable enough to stick with.
The problem any new cult has today is that science has provided a lot of answers which contradict the religious versions, and of course religion being "the word of God" it can't be revised. Modern cults like Scientology are all fighting against a modern backdrop that people have long seen through the bullshit the major religions spew out in an effort to control their sheep, as well as a million and one documentaries and fictional stories about cults, scams and rackets.
In other words they came late to the party, all the gullible people are taken and all they have left are those who pour scorn or ridicule over their claims.
Religions or their underdeveloped little brothers the Cults all have one aim, control. They seek to be the gatekeeper between their God and the believer. They manipulate people's emotions to get and maintain that control. They claim to offer spiritual and therefor unverifiable rewards to those who allow themselves to be controlled, and punish those who seek to either disrupt that control, or seek to escape it. All religions and cults have illogical "truths" told in fictional stories a 5 year old could write better with less plot holes. All religions entrench the leadership in unchallengeable potions.
What many seem to forget is belief in God, is different from considering oneself part of any religion or cult. Many people have seen the damage religion and it's followers have done to the planet and it's inhabitants and can't bare to be associated with it. That does not stop them believing in God. They can see religion for what it is, a man made manipulative organization using an unverifiable connection to God as the hook which amounts to "do what we say, in return we'll ask God to help you out, we have a direct line to him you know. We can't of course teach you how to do that for yourself as we're his special ones."
A couple of quotes spring to mind:
"God, please protect me from your followers" "Every day more and more people are giving up religion and returning to God"
The only thing the labels have to offer is access to the mainstream TV and radio stations to get airplay, which is not a guaranteed way to sales, as some have pointed out; a lot of people leave a channel like MTV on all day rather than listen to CDs.
The labels are always judged by their previous performances, they all have their hall of fame, with sales and profits from a different era, an era when they were the gate keepers of both access to publicity and distribution as well as high quality production facilities. Those times are will over but they are still living in that era. Sales wise the days of Queen, Elton John, The Beatles etc are long over, they will NEVER return.
No artist or band now will ever achieve those profit levels but the carrot the labels hold out for a HUGE share of a new artists profits and control over their careers is the possibility that it could be them. It's the same hook as the lottery, it could be you but it won't. In return for that control and percentage of the profits, the labels can often treat the artist like just another item in the in tray which will be dealt with after a round of golf. An album is held back if it's not commercial enough, after all, the labels are first and foremost a BUSINESS, music happens to be their product. They only invest money ticking all the usual promotional boxes if they believe the return is going to be worth it. From all the new artists and bands signing their lives away to the labels, most will fade into obscurity with their creative talents tied, and everything they do produce owned by someone else. Occasionally one or two will make it relatively big and become stars for a few years. I say "relatively" because they're still nothing (profitability wise) compared to the heady days of the 60's 70's and 80's "big" artists. The labels make sue to blind new artists so they only see the big stars, to tempt them in, knowing that in all likelyhood they'll be chewed up and spat out.
The internet has opened up an alternative world where the labels are excess to requirements. Artists and bands can buy or rent decent recording equipment cheap, they can create or mix the music on their home PC's, set up websites cheaply and joint the various social networking sites free of charge and promote themselves directly to their fans, cutting out the labels altogether. They then have complete control over their music which could be a good or bad thing. This means they're not reliant on some suit with an intray to deal with to get things moving, they set the pace. They're not at the mercy f someone telling them to "make it more poppy". They can be judged on their creativity, not a filtered version of it. More than all of this, they can make a decent living by embracing the internet and their fans. They will never be filthy rich this way, but in reality they would never be filthy rich signing to a label either, the difference is either buying into an illusion or reality.
Labels have long abused both ends of the chain, the artists and the fans. Before the internet they were in an unmovable position. Now the internet has given both ends of the chain an easy way to bypass the labels and they're increasingly desperate to protect their parasitic lifestyles. They know this, and the more they try to extort money from people, the more internet blogs, forums etc report and discuss it, the less their feeble arguments are accepted. They have very little to offer artists other than false hope. The more artists who speak out against them, the more it hurts their credibility reveals them for the parasites they are.
We've all got our own ideas on which parts of which browsers work for us, as well as which parts we hate. Each of the major browsers offers different combinations of things, leaving us to choose which one has most of the features we like and living with the features it has that we don't. No matter how Mozilla go with Firefox 4.0 it's going to please some while pissing off others. Whether people stop using Firefox because of the eventual change or whether they're blowing steam with threats of leaving if a change happens is another matter. For me (and I suspect a great deal of others) Firefox is still the best browser available by a country mile.
What would make a LOT of difference is if Mozilla could design the UI so it can be rearranged in a way the end user prefers. You can already drag the icons to different places on the toolbars, remove them or add them when you install a new addon. You can already hide or display toolbars. Why not extend that to other features? Prefer your tabs on the top? No problem. Prefer them on the sidebar? No problem. Prefer a traditional stop, reload button? No problem. Prefer a separate search bar? No problem. The reason I think people are passionately trying to win the argument over, is the fact that in some cases Mozilla have imposed the final decision on all users, like the Awesome bar, which many didn't like. If a default was chosen but options given to modify parts and let users keep parts of the older layout that they liked, it'd be a win for ALL of us. Not only that, but it'd up the bar for the other browsers to compete with.
Judging by the mockup images, the only thing I could think of was "Vista" which made me both shudder and wonder about. Why is an open source browser using the Vista imagery? Are they aiming Firefox 4.0 to be as well received as Vista was? Haven't they got the internet? Has nobody mentioned that Vista bombed? I understand it's likely one member of the Firefox team who uses Vista that made the mockups but since it's a cross platform browser you'd imagine they'd do more than just Vista mockups to emphasize that it's available for OSX and Linux too, and how it might look on those platforms.
My only real concern having seen the mockups is that I'd expect it to use the native theming of the platform. My Firefox uses GTK themes which matches the rest of my GTK system. I have Opera installed but it looks out of place, I tried Chromium for a few days out of curiosity, it also looks out of place. I'd have problems upgrading to Firefox 4.0 if it abandoned the native look and feel, after it'd spent a great deal of time and effort finally getting it right for Firefox 3.5. I expect Firefox users on other platforms have gotten used to it looking native to their platforms too.
Having said all that, this is just the developers putting out an early mockup to get feedback. It's rare for anything to arrive in it's final state close to what was originally proposed. It's almost always redesigned with feedback before it's final.
"MS's biggest flaw this time around was admitting fault they should have done like Sony last generation and said nothing, wait for the class action suits then make part of the settlement an agreement that they not have to admit fault of disclose the failure rate, it would have been alot cheaper than the 3 year warranty."
Does this sound like a company with their customers interests at heart? Is this a company that deserves customer loyalty? Putting aside who it is, I'd personally shun any company who'd first seek to hide from it's own responsibilities, then blame others when hiding it no longer an option. This is a way of treating customers that the MS fanboys approve of? I understand the shareholders, they only want a return, regardless of the ethics or legalities of how they get their return. Many of the shareholders won't use an XBOX 360, so a 1 in 2 chance of getting a dud won't affect them.
Surely the right response would be to have taken the reports of fails seriously, spent some development resources on getting to the route of the problem, finding a fix for it then make sure all unsold consoles are recalled and replaced with the new fixed ones. At least then you can limit the bad experience your customer gets.
For those who use the "how would they stay in business if this fail rate was true" defense I say this: MS's Windows and Office license rackets are the major earners, they subsidies MS's attempts to get into and buy market share in other areas, from console gaming to search engines. Most of MS loses them money. If MS was a gaming company the XBOX 360 fails would have sent them into administration long ago.
The XBOX 360 looks like a very nice console, pity about the odds of getting a dud. At least gamblers KNOW they're taking a chance with their money, shoppers should have a guarantee that the vast majority of some product coming out of a factory is working as it should and has passed some decent level of quality control, so that if they get a dud it's rare, and the chances of a replacement for the dud also being a dud is something even a gambler wouldn't bet on. 1 in 2 is atrocious and should be investigated by trading standards. MS seem to have no intention of doing right by their customers as usual until their hand is forced.
Seems to me that prototypes of the new iGrenade were slipped onto the market by accident. Apple do like to ensure they get the publicity by announcing new stuff themselves after all. The iGrenade will allow the US military to seed the battlefield with attractive weapons the insurgents will want to pick up. Apple should sue./sarcasm
There have been quite a few reports from filmmakers over the years to the effect that around 50% of a movies budget is set aside for advertising. A movie reputed to cost $200m actually cost $100m, with the rest in marketing. Of course the half actually used in making the movie also has big chunks set aside like celeb fees and licensing of rights. Take away those fees, pay the cast and crew a decent wage and you could make the same thing for less than $50m.
With that type of money, it's hardly surprising investors want to see the best chance of making a return and profit from their money. The movie business is not about telling stories, creating art or any other fancy stuff.....it's about making money. They churn out mainstream bland sequels of tried and tested formulas knowing their marketing budget gets all the endorsements, quotes and interview slots done by sycophantic journalists to ensure the people have their predictable buttons pushed that get them through the cinema door having paid to see a rehash of something they've already seen a million times before.
Investors want to ensure the movie is made with clipboards, ensuring it ticks as many boxes as possible to maximize it's potential audience. Anything original, which is more niche is not even considered. The aim of the game is to pump out what they want to sell you, rather than sell you something you want to buy.
On the EA issue, I've long known they spend more in other areas than development, their sports games are terrible. A large chunk of the costs go into paying for the rights to use the NBA, FIFA etc names, stadia, player rosters, player likenesses etc that they have little left to spend improving the next version of the game beyond a few graphical polishing tweaks; the players facial hair looks a little more real now.....wow, how about improving the game itself? Not to mention the releasing of half-baked versions like "road to world cup" which only has the qualifying rounds, if you want to actually play in the world cup you have to buy ANOTHER version of the fucking game. They've long taken the piss out of their customers, knowing there's a HUGE number of kids who will put up with a pile of shit if they can see their favorite players names, likenesses etc coming up hen they score. EA are a factory for mainstream shit, there's little creation there, the "arts" part of their name seems like it should be investigated under from the "truth in advertising" perspective.
With football (soccer to the US) games, compare FIFA to Konami's Pro Evolution (formerly known as ISS). No rights to tournaments, players or stadia but the ability to edit team and player names. Everything was recognizable to the fans but under different names. Oh and the game itself was a million times more accurate to football. ISS gained the reputation of being the best by players themselves, so they don't need to spend much on marketing to get it selling. They created something people are desperate for. In short, they respect their customers, and fans.
All the IE exploit goodness without being reminded that IE is sitting there as a security loophole on your PC, genius. It reminds me of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand when a predator comes along, assuming it's safe. It'd be nice if MS allowed people to remove IE altogether, not just the front end like they've been forced to in the EU.
Start at a much older age? They're twins, Luke was still a newbie, at most he had a year or two's head start on learning this new Force stuff, with no teacher or training material, not counting the short sessions with Obi-Wan en route to the Death Star, or his few weeks on Dagobah with Yoda. He was hardly an an advanced student. Given how a Princess / Politician would be raised and trained to learn a lot of stuff in a structured way, you could easily argue that Leia would be in a better position to learn when she started training.
"she died when I was very young" - yes, minutes old in fact. Before her eyes can adjust to the world outside the womb, before she realizes she's breathing this new stuff called air, she already has memories enough to recall 20yrs down the line.
There are plot holes in most fiction regardless of the medium, Star Wars is no different. The holes were made worse by the prequels. The only way of filling them, is adding the mental fills often done by the fans. I do the same myself. I happen to be a fan of the Expanded Universe novels, the movies are handy for a visual reminder but not a lot else.
The bottom line is the movies were never meant to be scrutinized in so much detail, they were entertainment for kids who wouldn't notice these plot holes. A lot of the criticism Star Wars gets, like the hatred for Jar Jar Binks comes from adults who watch a kids movie with adult eyes. It's not aimed at them. It's aimed at kids. They were the target age for the original trilogy and grew to love it then. All the new Star Wars stuff is just a long overdue continuation of something they loved from their childhood, a large part of that love comes from being the right target for a story, from the memories it evoked at the time, and the imagination it triggered. Revisit the prequels, the various Clone Wars episodes and try to watch them as a kid would, unjaded, with no adult-complex plots etc. Sit back and watch them for what they are, a visual piece of entertainment with plenty of action.
For what it's worth, the authors in the Expanded Universe do a MUCH better job than George Lucas at bringing to life the Star Wars universe. They provide the depth, the complexity etc that tunes it more to an adult audience, while keeping the Star Wars "family friendly" approach to some subjects. Some authors are better than others, some books are better than others. Apart from a few bad novels, most are very good however.
The Star Wars saga was originally planned as 9 movies, but the plots for each movie were very vague, rough "back of a beermat" level of detail. He only managed to get funding for one of them, and knowing it was likely to be a one off didn't take any care in locking himself in. Luke & Leia were never meant to be related, let alone twins and Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader were meant to be two different people. "Anakin was betrayed and murdered by Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine before he turned to evil". In the fleshing out stage those details were added to help provide extra value to the cliffhanger in episode 5.
After these are all set in stone in the original movies, he then has to find a place those could have come from, with all the story limitations he's created for himself. The tech from the prequels has to look modern from the audience's perspective, yet somehow evolve in the SW universe into the tech seen in the original movies. Sleek, aerodynamic ships evolve into blocky ones. For that he's done well. From a storytellers perspective it'd be far easier to work from episode 1 onwards, it keeps people guessing in the scenes. If you know Obi-Wan helps Luke 20yrs down the line, no matter what situation you put him in he survives, he has to, to help Luke years later.
Remember Luke asking Leia if she remembers her real mother? Remember her reply? It does not tally with Leia's birth and Padme's death.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point, it's shiny, and Steve has given it the stamp of cool and he's the only person on the planet officially allowed to do that, so he should know cool when he sees it. That should be enough for you. Or are you a commie? /sarcasm.
I wasn't aware Google = Government, with a few exceptions like China. Any closed source application can be tracking you and you'd never know. Chances are Apple are doing the same in all sorts of ways, for the same reasons Google do....targeted advertising. They want to know more about you so they can put an advert up which is more likely to appeal to your wallet opening tendencies.
At least with Google you don't need to use Google apps to access the services, you can use open or closed source third party apps like Firefox which has an addon to limit what information Google get from you when you do use their services. More than that, you can choose not to use Google at all. With the iPhone Apple ensure that some of their apps are the ONLY option. They won't allow any competing web browser so your stuck with theirs, regardless of whether they've stuffed it with spyware or not. Same goes with iTunes, do you believe they don't track what media you have? Are you really that naieve?
Do Microsoft like or not like monopolies? They also seem a tad confused on the subject. On one hand they see no problem with their own monopolies being good for the customer, yet complain when it's other companies monopolies, that they're bad for the consumer. Is there an answer to this question that does not make Microsoft hypocrites?
Duplicating functionality? I wonder if "copy & paste" could be described as that? Maybe that's why it was missing from the iPhone when it first appeared. Then again, if it could be classed as that, Apple seem to be contradicting their own rules. /sarcasm.
Seriously, this is just one in a long list of stories which suggest Apple are barmy. Each new example of a Stalin-like appreciation of freedom sees another few previously loyal Apple customers cringe and refuse to defend Apple as they once did. People have tipping points they may not even recognize, at some point they will say "enough is enough" and take a stand against the authority figure they see as unnecessarily restricting some free choices.
Maybe Apple believe they have the smart phone market sewn up, and between the lock in and heavy marketing they can afford to piss customers off. That may well change when Android has a few years maturity on the market and Apple find themselves a niche option for people willing to pay the Apple premium. Maybe by that time the damage will be done, and Apple will have plenty of disgruntled ex-customers who won't buy Apple again, the same way Microsoft have created a LOT of ex-Windows users who won't touch Windows again.
Scientology does differ from the major religions in one obvious way, it's target audience. Religions target the poor, weak, downtrodden people who's lives are daily hell for a number of reasons, and promise them that things are reversed in Heaven, that they will be kings or queens in the afterlife if they just obey. The meek shall inherit the Earth? What a brilliant defense against an uprising. You really have to credit the leaders with covering every base to ensure their continued reign.
This is why religious leaders hold more influence among the people in poor countries. It's why some of the gullible can be convinced to die for the cause, to get the reward of a better afterlife quicker doing God's will.
Scientology targets the people with money to fund them.
I don't know much about Judaism so I'll assume you're right, but also point out that it seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Tradition seems to win over common sense in most cases. I know many religions have different branches who all believe mostly the same thing by differ on minor points. This seems to be an excuse for man to kill man, because they don't conform exactly to our views they need to die; it's always the loving caring religions huh?
There are revisionist movements of course, but these are fringe groups who are having very little headway against the entrenched status quo. Look at the outrage when a woman is appointed to a high position, or God forbid a homosexual. How many congregations have boycotted, threatened splits etc because a gay man was appointed? The status quo are stuck in the dark ages and the people see it. The revisionists see their religion is becoming irrelevant in the modern world and are trying to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st Century but their efforts may well be far too little, far too late to save it.
History is of course written by the victors, edited to portray them in a more heroic light where the excesses were all done for the common good, and most of all "in the name of their God". For centuries the average people couldn't read or write, so they were reliant on gatekeepers interpreting stories. For a while the Church didn't want followers being able to read the bible in their native language, so that they could maintain the monopoly on the translators jobs, which many now see for what it is; control.
Plenty of lessons have been learned from this like PR people waxing lyrical in news stories, with barely a hint of truth included, or IT companies ensuring the end users are forced to use THEIR products or services, to ensure THEY stay in control. None of these examples have been good for end users, they have been good for those who profit from deceit, lies, manipulation and control. The longer they get away with it, the more the feel they're entitled to it and seek to crush or discredit those who question it.
Plenty of people use history selectively to support their aims, while ignoring other parts of it which contradict their assessments. As the say, people who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. The same applies to those who create a conclusion and seek to find only the parts of history that support it.
"So, my dear apathetic atheist, what have you done to confront systemic evil?"
ROFL
From a an account name called MrKaos
I love it.
People can convince themselves of anything if they really want to. I don't doubt that after a while they really believe they're doing God's work, which really amounts to the same thing. The more power they have, the more they can achieve for their chosen God, the more influence they can have to further the message. They get caught up in both the doctrine and the tradition, and seek to use that as an excuse to hide behind, rather than see where it needs to change to reflect modern times. They will defend their right to discriminate while claiming to be accepting and welcoming, the catch obviously is obedience. If you are obedient to them and their ideas, they will accept you.
Are they cynical? I'd answer that by saying if you haven't noticed for yourself, you may be too close to the subject to see the truth. When you're surrounded day and night by something, your objective judgment on it evaporates. It becomes harder and harder to recognize some of what you once took as solid fact for what it is, superstition and no more real than any other fiction book on the bookshelves. Any time you start to question it you'll have someone in your face telling you that you're in need of spiritual help. If you're on the outside, you can see the absurdities these people have managed to convince themselves of, and all you can do is laugh and pity them.
So the concept of excommunication is a figment of our imagination? How many victims of sexual abuse by the clergy have been either excommunicated or threatened with it if they dare to speak out? They are threatened with being exiled from everything they know and hold dear. In exile they are forbidden from having contact with others who are obedient, including family and friends. Their status is announced to the rest of the flock, so the peer pressure adds to the power to stay obedient or be exiled.
All religions and cults have that little loophole covered, if you leave or turn against our instructions you will be punished in some way. If you're obedient you'll never face these punishments. It's the same idea as closing the loophole on worshiping other Gods.
In some religions, leaving the faith is punishable by death. If that's not a separation from your friends and family I don't know what is; unless of course "death" is also being applied to them too. That being the case, you'll find out soon enough if it was all a scam or not, or whether there's a doorman at the gates of Heaven looking down his clipboard to see if you picked the correct religion to join, and did all the rituals well enough. Not only that but he has to check your life's history to make sure you walked the walk, not just appeared on the chosen day for your weekly dress ups and went through the motions.
They sell the promise of being accepted into heaven, the price is obedience, not money.
A religion is only a cult that's had more time to gather in more suckers. Every religion starts as a cult. They all have funny rituals as ways to worship their chosen invisible man. The major world religions all started at a time when mankind knew little science, so the stories and explanations about the world around them as told by preachers sounded believable enough to stick with.
The problem any new cult has today is that science has provided a lot of answers which contradict the religious versions, and of course religion being "the word of God" it can't be revised. Modern cults like Scientology are all fighting against a modern backdrop that people have long seen through the bullshit the major religions spew out in an effort to control their sheep, as well as a million and one documentaries and fictional stories about cults, scams and rackets.
In other words they came late to the party, all the gullible people are taken and all they have left are those who pour scorn or ridicule over their claims.
Religions or their underdeveloped little brothers the Cults all have one aim, control. They seek to be the gatekeeper between their God and the believer. They manipulate people's emotions to get and maintain that control. They claim to offer spiritual and therefor unverifiable rewards to those who allow themselves to be controlled, and punish those who seek to either disrupt that control, or seek to escape it. All religions and cults have illogical "truths" told in fictional stories a 5 year old could write better with less plot holes. All religions entrench the leadership in unchallengeable potions.
What many seem to forget is belief in God, is different from considering oneself part of any religion or cult. Many people have seen the damage religion and it's followers have done to the planet and it's inhabitants and can't bare to be associated with it. That does not stop them believing in God. They can see religion for what it is, a man made manipulative organization using an unverifiable connection to God as the hook which amounts to "do what we say, in return we'll ask God to help you out, we have a direct line to him you know. We can't of course teach you how to do that for yourself as we're his special ones."
A couple of quotes spring to mind:
"God, please protect me from your followers"
"Every day more and more people are giving up religion and returning to God"
Or are MS ensuring we get infected at the party?
They will always be back.
Sorry, another point....
The only thing the labels have to offer is access to the mainstream TV and radio stations to get airplay, which is not a guaranteed way to sales, as some have pointed out; a lot of people leave a channel like MTV on all day rather than listen to CDs.
The labels are always judged by their previous performances, they all have their hall of fame, with sales and profits from a different era, an era when they were the gate keepers of both access to publicity and distribution as well as high quality production facilities. Those times are will over but they are still living in that era. Sales wise the days of Queen, Elton John, The Beatles etc are long over, they will NEVER return.
No artist or band now will ever achieve those profit levels but the carrot the labels hold out for a HUGE share of a new artists profits and control over their careers is the possibility that it could be them. It's the same hook as the lottery, it could be you but it won't. In return for that control and percentage of the profits, the labels can often treat the artist like just another item in the in tray which will be dealt with after a round of golf. An album is held back if it's not commercial enough, after all, the labels are first and foremost a BUSINESS, music happens to be their product. They only invest money ticking all the usual promotional boxes if they believe the return is going to be worth it. From all the new artists and bands signing their lives away to the labels, most will fade into obscurity with their creative talents tied, and everything they do produce owned by someone else. Occasionally one or two will make it relatively big and become stars for a few years. I say "relatively" because they're still nothing (profitability wise) compared to the heady days of the 60's 70's and 80's "big" artists. The labels make sue to blind new artists so they only see the big stars, to tempt them in, knowing that in all likelyhood they'll be chewed up and spat out.
The internet has opened up an alternative world where the labels are excess to requirements. Artists and bands can buy or rent decent recording equipment cheap, they can create or mix the music on their home PC's, set up websites cheaply and joint the various social networking sites free of charge and promote themselves directly to their fans, cutting out the labels altogether. They then have complete control over their music which could be a good or bad thing. This means they're not reliant on some suit with an intray to deal with to get things moving, they set the pace. They're not at the mercy f someone telling them to "make it more poppy". They can be judged on their creativity, not a filtered version of it. More than all of this, they can make a decent living by embracing the internet and their fans. They will never be filthy rich this way, but in reality they would never be filthy rich signing to a label either, the difference is either buying into an illusion or reality.
Labels have long abused both ends of the chain, the artists and the fans. Before the internet they were in an unmovable position. Now the internet has given both ends of the chain an easy way to bypass the labels and they're increasingly desperate to protect their parasitic lifestyles. They know this, and the more they try to extort money from people, the more internet blogs, forums etc report and discuss it, the less their feeble arguments are accepted. They have very little to offer artists other than false hope. The more artists who speak out against them, the more it hurts their credibility reveals them for the parasites they are.
We've all got our own ideas on which parts of which browsers work for us, as well as which parts we hate. Each of the major browsers offers different combinations of things, leaving us to choose which one has most of the features we like and living with the features it has that we don't. No matter how Mozilla go with Firefox 4.0 it's going to please some while pissing off others. Whether people stop using Firefox because of the eventual change or whether they're blowing steam with threats of leaving if a change happens is another matter. For me (and I suspect a great deal of others) Firefox is still the best browser available by a country mile.
What would make a LOT of difference is if Mozilla could design the UI so it can be rearranged in a way the end user prefers. You can already drag the icons to different places on the toolbars, remove them or add them when you install a new addon. You can already hide or display toolbars. Why not extend that to other features? Prefer your tabs on the top? No problem. Prefer them on the sidebar? No problem. Prefer a traditional stop, reload button? No problem. Prefer a separate search bar? No problem. The reason I think people are passionately trying to win the argument over, is the fact that in some cases Mozilla have imposed the final decision on all users, like the Awesome bar, which many didn't like. If a default was chosen but options given to modify parts and let users keep parts of the older layout that they liked, it'd be a win for ALL of us. Not only that, but it'd up the bar for the other browsers to compete with.
Judging by the mockup images, the only thing I could think of was "Vista" which made me both shudder and wonder about. Why is an open source browser using the Vista imagery? Are they aiming Firefox 4.0 to be as well received as Vista was? Haven't they got the internet? Has nobody mentioned that Vista bombed? I understand it's likely one member of the Firefox team who uses Vista that made the mockups but since it's a cross platform browser you'd imagine they'd do more than just Vista mockups to emphasize that it's available for OSX and Linux too, and how it might look on those platforms.
My only real concern having seen the mockups is that I'd expect it to use the native theming of the platform. My Firefox uses GTK themes which matches the rest of my GTK system. I have Opera installed but it looks out of place, I tried Chromium for a few days out of curiosity, it also looks out of place. I'd have problems upgrading to Firefox 4.0 if it abandoned the native look and feel, after it'd spent a great deal of time and effort finally getting it right for Firefox 3.5. I expect Firefox users on other platforms have gotten used to it looking native to their platforms too.
Having said all that, this is just the developers putting out an early mockup to get feedback. It's rare for anything to arrive in it's final state close to what was originally proposed. It's almost always redesigned with feedback before it's final.
"MS's biggest flaw this time around was admitting fault they should have done like Sony last generation and said nothing, wait for the class action suits then make part of the settlement an agreement that they not have to admit fault of disclose the failure rate, it would have been alot cheaper than the 3 year warranty."
Does this sound like a company with their customers interests at heart? Is this a company that deserves customer loyalty? Putting aside who it is, I'd personally shun any company who'd first seek to hide from it's own responsibilities, then blame others when hiding it no longer an option. This is a way of treating customers that the MS fanboys approve of? I understand the shareholders, they only want a return, regardless of the ethics or legalities of how they get their return. Many of the shareholders won't use an XBOX 360, so a 1 in 2 chance of getting a dud won't affect them.
Surely the right response would be to have taken the reports of fails seriously, spent some development resources on getting to the route of the problem, finding a fix for it then make sure all unsold consoles are recalled and replaced with the new fixed ones. At least then you can limit the bad experience your customer gets.
For those who use the "how would they stay in business if this fail rate was true" defense I say this: MS's Windows and Office license rackets are the major earners, they subsidies MS's attempts to get into and buy market share in other areas, from console gaming to search engines. Most of MS loses them money. If MS was a gaming company the XBOX 360 fails would have sent them into administration long ago.
The XBOX 360 looks like a very nice console, pity about the odds of getting a dud. At least gamblers KNOW they're taking a chance with their money, shoppers should have a guarantee that the vast majority of some product coming out of a factory is working as it should and has passed some decent level of quality control, so that if they get a dud it's rare, and the chances of a replacement for the dud also being a dud is something even a gambler wouldn't bet on. 1 in 2 is atrocious and should be investigated by trading standards. MS seem to have no intention of doing right by their customers as usual until their hand is forced.
Seems to me that prototypes of the new iGrenade were slipped onto the market by accident. Apple do like to ensure they get the publicity by announcing new stuff themselves after all. The iGrenade will allow the US military to seed the battlefield with attractive weapons the insurgents will want to pick up. Apple should sue. /sarcasm
There have been quite a few reports from filmmakers over the years to the effect that around 50% of a movies budget is set aside for advertising. A movie reputed to cost $200m actually cost $100m, with the rest in marketing. Of course the half actually used in making the movie also has big chunks set aside like celeb fees and licensing of rights. Take away those fees, pay the cast and crew a decent wage and you could make the same thing for less than $50m.
With that type of money, it's hardly surprising investors want to see the best chance of making a return and profit from their money. The movie business is not about telling stories, creating art or any other fancy stuff.....it's about making money. They churn out mainstream bland sequels of tried and tested formulas knowing their marketing budget gets all the endorsements, quotes and interview slots done by sycophantic journalists to ensure the people have their predictable buttons pushed that get them through the cinema door having paid to see a rehash of something they've already seen a million times before.
Investors want to ensure the movie is made with clipboards, ensuring it ticks as many boxes as possible to maximize it's potential audience. Anything original, which is more niche is not even considered. The aim of the game is to pump out what they want to sell you, rather than sell you something you want to buy.
On the EA issue, I've long known they spend more in other areas than development, their sports games are terrible. A large chunk of the costs go into paying for the rights to use the NBA, FIFA etc names, stadia, player rosters, player likenesses etc that they have little left to spend improving the next version of the game beyond a few graphical polishing tweaks; the players facial hair looks a little more real now.....wow, how about improving the game itself? Not to mention the releasing of half-baked versions like "road to world cup" which only has the qualifying rounds, if you want to actually play in the world cup you have to buy ANOTHER version of the fucking game. They've long taken the piss out of their customers, knowing there's a HUGE number of kids who will put up with a pile of shit if they can see their favorite players names, likenesses etc coming up hen they score. EA are a factory for mainstream shit, there's little creation there, the "arts" part of their name seems like it should be investigated under from the "truth in advertising" perspective.
With football (soccer to the US) games, compare FIFA to Konami's Pro Evolution (formerly known as ISS). No rights to tournaments, players or stadia but the ability to edit team and player names. Everything was recognizable to the fans but under different names. Oh and the game itself was a million times more accurate to football. ISS gained the reputation of being the best by players themselves, so they don't need to spend much on marketing to get it selling. They created something people are desperate for. In short, they respect their customers, and fans.
All the IE exploit goodness without being reminded that IE is sitting there as a security loophole on your PC, genius. It reminds me of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand when a predator comes along, assuming it's safe. It'd be nice if MS allowed people to remove IE altogether, not just the front end like they've been forced to in the EU.
Start at a much older age? They're twins, Luke was still a newbie, at most he had a year or two's head start on learning this new Force stuff, with no teacher or training material, not counting the short sessions with Obi-Wan en route to the Death Star, or his few weeks on Dagobah with Yoda. He was hardly an an advanced student. Given how a Princess / Politician would be raised and trained to learn a lot of stuff in a structured way, you could easily argue that Leia would be in a better position to learn when she started training.
"she died when I was very young" - yes, minutes old in fact. Before her eyes can adjust to the world outside the womb, before she realizes she's breathing this new stuff called air, she already has memories enough to recall 20yrs down the line.
There are plot holes in most fiction regardless of the medium, Star Wars is no different. The holes were made worse by the prequels. The only way of filling them, is adding the mental fills often done by the fans. I do the same myself. I happen to be a fan of the Expanded Universe novels, the movies are handy for a visual reminder but not a lot else.
The bottom line is the movies were never meant to be scrutinized in so much detail, they were entertainment for kids who wouldn't notice these plot holes. A lot of the criticism Star Wars gets, like the hatred for Jar Jar Binks comes from adults who watch a kids movie with adult eyes. It's not aimed at them. It's aimed at kids. They were the target age for the original trilogy and grew to love it then. All the new Star Wars stuff is just a long overdue continuation of something they loved from their childhood, a large part of that love comes from being the right target for a story, from the memories it evoked at the time, and the imagination it triggered. Revisit the prequels, the various Clone Wars episodes and try to watch them as a kid would, unjaded, with no adult-complex plots etc. Sit back and watch them for what they are, a visual piece of entertainment with plenty of action.
For what it's worth, the authors in the Expanded Universe do a MUCH better job than George Lucas at bringing to life the Star Wars universe. They provide the depth, the complexity etc that tunes it more to an adult audience, while keeping the Star Wars "family friendly" approach to some subjects. Some authors are better than others, some books are better than others. Apart from a few bad novels, most are very good however.
/. needs an edit feature, sorry.
The Star Wars saga was originally planned as 9 movies, but the plots for each movie were very vague, rough "back of a beermat" level of detail. He only managed to get funding for one of them, and knowing it was likely to be a one off didn't take any care in locking himself in. Luke & Leia were never meant to be related, let alone twins and Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader were meant to be two different people. "Anakin was betrayed and murdered by Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine before he turned to evil". In the fleshing out stage those details were added to help provide extra value to the cliffhanger in episode 5.
After these are all set in stone in the original movies, he then has to find a place those could have come from, with all the story limitations he's created for himself. The tech from the prequels has to look modern from the audience's perspective, yet somehow evolve in the SW universe into the tech seen in the original movies. Sleek, aerodynamic ships evolve into blocky ones. For that he's done well. From a storytellers perspective it'd be far easier to work from episode 1 onwards, it keeps people guessing in the scenes. If you know Obi-Wan helps Luke 20yrs down the line, no matter what situation you put him in he survives, he has to, to help Luke years later.
Remember Luke asking Leia if she remembers her real mother? Remember her reply? It does not tally with Leia's birth and Padme's death.
Obi-Wan being unaware that Luke has a sister for a start.