IIRC he saw one of his early films on tv at one point and was appalled at how it had been mangled. In order to be certain that this would not continue to happen from then on he set up his shots such that 4:3 would contain the full shot, but that nothing significant would be lost when it was matted for 16:9 to be projected in theaters. Thus the majority of Kubrick films are correctly in 4:3 on DVD and video, but actually slightly off in the theater. While not a "Kubrick film" Spartacus is a notable exception having a rather wide ratio, 2.2:1 (70mm) going by the back of the box for the Criterion DVD release. 1.85:1 (academy flat) and 2.35:1 (anamorphic scope aka Panavision/Cinemascope) tend to be the standard two widescreen ratios.
Likewise films before the 1950s were largely filmed in 4:3 (academy standard). This is the main reason why televisions are also 4:3. When the NTSC chose an aspect ratio standard they went with academy standard. Films later went widescreen to offer something above and beyond television.
Really? The film had massive cross-over appeal to both adults and children because it was so damn good. It wasn't demeaning, sappy, pointless or pandering. I can scarcely imagine that someone made it at all!
Likewise this is part of the problem. If children grew up with widescreen they wouldn't complain when they got older. I was thinking about this the other day actually. How with the increase in widescreen films in about 15-20 years we likely won't have a problem with it as they'll have been used to it. I fail to see a compelling reason to release movies targetted at children in pan and scan anyway. I doubt there's a matter of cost involved and as mentioned kids don't care, but adults often do.
By and large the problem is that the iPod seems to be very, very touchy and selective with the Firewire cards it works with. It's not limited to the Audigy. There are quite a few people with a variety of cards that have problems with it.
As for the Mac... well... duh. I imagine that Apple would test them with the hardware that they make. That's where many people think the problem is. Apple is used to products conforming far more often. On the PC you tend to get a much wider array of hardware all implementing the same thing.
As for the problem itself? Well... it works great, but every so often it will time out and the drive "skitters" before picking up again. This tends to introduce problems into the file being transferred. A fix for a particular VIA chipset was unofficially released that changed the timing IIRC and this has worked for many people with problematic cards.
So no. My problem is partially expecting Creative to properly follow a standard when they release hardware to the point that it will work with devices properly. Partly that the iPod... while a great device, has problems. Microsoft? Screw that. I have XP on my box for gaming, but otherwise spend time in Slackware. Aside from XP the only thing by MS I have is their odd strategy-gaming oriented joystick-mouse lovechild thingie. I've never installed a copy of Office or anything else.
I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I would be inclined to believe that it does. Personally I own an Audigy and an iPod and they don't work very well together. Creative apparently diverges from the 1394 standard thus the "SB1394" label. This is designed to work mainly with Creative devices although I doubt they've actually managed to do anything significant to it. That said iPod users frequently complain about it as the iPod can be rather touchy about the Firewire chipset it'll work with. Mine is just this side of usable (times out every so often and I get a badly transfered song, this also leads to slower transfer speeds in general).
To check into the iPod just a bit beyond the hype and positive comments check out the iPod support page (Windows iPod, but you can get to the Mac version from the same page). There are frequent problems with battery usage (it never turns off, just goes into a sleep mode which has often had serious power drain problems), connecting to the computer, firewire cards, etc. Not to mention the terrible (more or less complete lack of) manual and abyssmal software (MusicMatch Jukebox... an old version too as the newer ones apparently don't work. ephPod works much better and has many features that were excluded from MusicMatch, but sorely desired. I've gone terribly off-topic, but I do love my iPod despite it's faults.
"Microsoft is and should be trying to reduce the clutter of the number of different pieces of hardware that need to be supported. Look at Linux - it can't keep up with all the crap HW coming on the market from all over the place. Please do we really need 100's of cards, USB devices and etc. NO and where does it fall to support that in the OS lots of the time."
So essentially a monopoly prevents us from having to worry about the problem of choice (and support as it relates to this)? I'm not even talking about a monopoly by Microsoft or any specific company, but the language you use seems to indicate that you think it would be better than trying to make diverse products work. The problems with this are many (it works, but it sucks/costs too much/doesn't really work/etc.) and the benefits are negligiable. Though I do understand the desire of the general public to dumb everything down to the point where they don't have to think at all and can just trust the monopoly to supply them.
Another poster mentioned open standards as the way to fix this properly and I have to agree. Standards allow competition, but provide a basic framework in which to contain it for the purposes of making it useful. Technology innovation pushes standards innovation (or at least, should... it seems too often that things get bogged down working in old standards, but that's another discussion altogether).
An interesting idea on both counts actually. While it would seem obvious that you own the right to LP version it also brings up other issues. Let's say the particular album is remastered 20 years later. Do you own the rights to the remastered tracks?
To a certain degree a case can be made that you only own the rights to the product in their current fidelity. I would personally feel that you purchased a right to the music at the level of fidelity at which the original purchase was made, but this can be highly subjective. Overall though I'd say you have a right to the product as it sounded when you originally purchased it (from a copyright standpoint) but you still only have the right to the physical product in it's current form (no asking for you money back because you scratch a cd 5 years after buying it).
This logic would mean that you are on questionable ground in the first scenario, but are not in the right in the second.
I feel this brings up some important issues as to how these sorts of issues have been largely ignorable as until recently the intellectual property was directly connected to the physical media. If I bought a used cd I would pay less partially because the condition isn't as good. Does this mean though that since you bought an album on cassette for $0.50 at a garage sale you now own the rights to the same work in the same fidelity as being sold on cd for $17? How much is the ownership of the intellectual property and how much is the ownership of physical media containing it at a set level of fidelity (and presumably, lower levels of quality as well)?
I believe he means the extensive and informative extras that came with the real (read: extended) version. The first one was to get fanboys to spend extra cash to have it early and give something to Blockbuster and idiots who don't know any better or don't care.
Part of the problem is making those restrictions apply well beyond reasonable bounds because parents don't want to have to watch their children all the time. As a result a 16 year-old can drive and have sex (in most states) but cannot: buy an "M" rated videogame, watch an "R" or "NC-17" rated film, purchase pornography or most sexual devices. It's all too common to set age restrictions on minors designed to protect them, but go overboard on them.
Likewise as much as parents want to protect and benefit their children it is only right and acceptable for them to go so far. Minors have absolutely no political power, but frequently things are done to them "for their own good". At a certain point parents don't have the right to control their children even if they are below the age of majority.
Well... I guess if that's all you use it for then it isn't really useful. I don't though. I look at it as more of a small, low-storage, palmtop computer. Sure I use it to keep track of things, but I'm far more likely to use it to read the news or a book, keep a database of movie times, play games, store useful data, and a number of other things. I'd say that I use the calender and address book least of anything on it.
Now if the Palm platform offered more features much like the PocketPC lines but without the various problems of the PocketPC lines they might start pulling up a bit. I do think they may have gotten mired down in the idea of simply using it as an organizer themselves though, which is a shame.
I'm not as familiar with this as I am the rest of the pronto line, but the previous top of the line fully programmable remote, the Philips ProntoPro TSU6000 featured not only a fully customizable touchscreen, but a number of hard buttons as well. It also was the size of a rather largish PDA rather than a small dog. Still runs for $1,000 or so IIRC.
Precisely the sort of thing that's making online-only direct-sale AV equipment such an increasingly good market. That said there are some excellent products out there for excellent prices: Outlaw Audio, Home Theater Direct, and Axiom Audio (technically they sell B&M in Cananda, but not in the US). The problem being that you don't get to demo the equipment first and are often out a hefty shipping fee if you decide to return (HTD offers a free return if you're a first-time buyer IIRC).
In many areas I think that online-only directly marketed products stand to put a serious dent in some markets, but I doubt they'll ever take over. Word of mouth and excellent reviews can only do so much and some people will only feel comfortable buying in person.
Being beaten to death by killer robots by far outweighs any plans I've had for my own death. Then again I work in a lab with "Warning: RADIATION" on the door, with my back to the rad hood and frequently handle EtBr and other substances classed as potentially dangerous mutagens so uhm... put on some gloves.
Science is often dangerous (trust me, I've spilled a few drops of 6M HCl on myself), but usually the benefits outweigh. Sure I might create a deadly form of highly virulent, incredibly resistant, pathogenic S. Cerevisiae, but the likelihood of science causing having truly dangerous consequences is rather low.
Dammit... I've gone and put actual content in here when all I'd wanted to do was talk about my desire to be bludgeoned by killer robots. Damn brain, I'm gonna stab you with a Q-tip!
You obviously don't work in a molecular genetics lab. Most of the actual time working is spent waiting. Things take time in biology because life takes time and dammit but you're going to have to wait for that bacteria/yeast to grow before you can do anything with it. Likewise much of biology is still done on a lab bench rather than in computers. Computers tend to come into play mainly during the planning of experiments and in analysis of the data that's been collected. I understand your concept, but it's not really as feasible or realistic. Yes, science can be petty, catty, and political like all other fields, but it still doesn't operate in a way that makes this nearly as likely as you make it out to be. Especially the masturbatory fantasy part that leads it off. No offense intended:)
Even worse they'll (apparently) make sequels! I'm told that Kangaroo Jack 2 will take place in Las Vegas where the kangaroo has now stolen more money for some undisclosed reason.
I do think that part of the reason it did so well was because it was a rather dry time for movies appealing to idiots and children and thus raked in most of the money that is usually spent on keeping the whining shit factories quiet (but not at any of the films I attend... I recall during a "House of 1,000 Corpses" trailer in front of "Willard" one precocious young fuck asked what a corpse was, a friend of mine offered to make him very well acquainted with it).
Really... most of the absolute crap is sold to children. Disney seems to have figured this out with the glut of shitty direct-to-video sequels to decades old films that weren't much more than terrible cash-cows for children to begin with (Disney movies tend to be very much like Bollywood musicals... vapid, cheery, and crowd-pleasing... but with slightly less criminal influence in the making). Still they do well and almost any parent these days has a mess of them. Children will tolerate almost anything it seems and parents are all too happy to pay for it if they don't have to watch them too closely. Sadly there are also films that are reasonably fit to offend few people other than the guy at CAPAlert. I'd suggest the (entertaining but forgettable) "Catch Me While You Can" particularly, although it seems that there isn't much being put out in this realm and not much was done in the past that isn't disgustingly saccharine.
The other major market is artistic idiots. I've often heard from people watching terrible crap that they "just want something they don't have to think about". Any attempt to appeal to intelligence is lost on them as they merely want the lowest common denominator sit-com crap. They even make a point of wanting dumb romantic comedies that are predictable and dull since they require little to no thought, but are (presumably) entertaining. Oh, and don't make it too long. People hate getting value for their money or seeing any story that can't be crammed into the short time limit they're comfortable with. No chance for story, character development, or intelligent and thought-provoking dialogue, that'll take longer than 2 hours and might make someone unhappy!
Yeah... can't believe a product wouldn't run acceptably on a system that's only a few years old. Dammit, if you want a game to run right you better have built a new system within the year or expect it to look like slowly oozing mud.
That said, on technical matters it's a matter of seperating the wheat from the chaff. It's something you have to do with all reviews in order to get what you want. Read between the lines and try to understand more why the reviewer is saying it.
I tend to seek out negative reviews and opinions far more readily as a result. Usually negative reviewers will either give away their bias very readily and inform you on the issue rather than gushing about why it's so good. Maybe it's my generally pessimistic worldview, but a critical review tends to show weak points about why you don't want it and it leaves it up to you to determine if they outweigh.
Uhm... it will accept paper for a second pass to print on the back if you figure out the correct way to stick it into the slot and do so. It just doesn't do it automagically.
Actually this is the aspect I like least. I don't use Mozilla for anything but web browsing so I'd prefer that more time go into developing that. Partly it's due to the Unix philosophy, partly it's because I don't like suites (with web browsers especially I think this may be partly to blame when people think that Netscape/Mozilla/etc. is "the internet"), but mainly it's because I'm a bit of a throwback. I use Eudora when I'm in windows and KMail, PINE, MUTT, CSC, etc. under Linux. Cramming more "features" and bloating Mozilla just seems like the wrong way to go.
I doubt that's going to be much of a problem. As far as I'm aware they don't have a method devised yet of sucessfully blocking you from wanking to her in the manner of your choice. At least this way noone will unfortunately feel the urge to give her "music" a go and simply remain content with the liner.
Perhaps not a great idea in CS, but just about the only option in biology, physics, chemistry, etc. As a biology/microbiology major with only a minor in CS I'm more or less screwed if I don't get my PhD (besides, I want it). The minor is helping a bit as I nudge around a little in bioinformatics, but frankly it's not really all that exciting to a lot of people in biology. To most biologists bioinformatics is little more than another tool to be used and frankly I'd much rather be doing research.
Actually a new version is coming out soon (and I think may already be out) The "Boomstick Edition", basically this is a reprint of the limited edition released a few years ago by Anchor Bay and will contain the theatrical version and the director's cut (currently available as the "Official Bootleg").
Part of the problem stems from having two main versions of the film that get put out in limited editions and such then go away (limited editions with exclusive content suck, just give them cool packaging or something). Since the original limited edition came out just about a year before DVD really blew up in the general consumer market it's been getting rather high (~$50-100) prices second-hand.
As far as the best get the most recent version of either the theatrical, the official bootleg, or the new boomstick edition if you want both versions. It really depends on which version you prefer.
The Evil Dead itself has had more versions due to the age of the film and other issues (the recent limited edition has a booklet on all the various versions and the reasons for so many).
I'd have to agree. I'm not certain off the top of my head just how long it took Duke3d to come out, but it was quite a long time although perhaps it was only 3-4 years.
I'm still a student and thus largely insulated from this sort of thing. Still, I think that people are looking at the wrong issues here.
First it's more likely that people are simply pissed off. They're not the head jock anymore, they're drone #2817-G and noone gives a fuck who they dated in high school. Even worse the people they used to pick on back then matter now. They're doing something and rather than spend the minimal ammount of time required to understand how to use something they'd rather get pissed about it. "That damn geek expects me to learn this shit? I've got better things to do than read a manual writen by some science club loser."
Second is that these training classes don't seem entirely necessary. Indeed there's a lot of bloatware out there with obscure and pointless features that are a pain in the ass to get at. Still, you don't need to spend 8 hours having some idiot try to teach you how to use them. In some highly technical applications it may be necessary and useful to spend some time in training, but you probably don't need it for the next version of Word. Seriously. My school teaches 8 week courses on how to use Word and Netscape and they're unnnecessary crap. Back in high school there was a "Technology Literacy" class that would spend a day explaining the basics elements of the Windows UI, one day was spent almost entirely on right-click context menus, another on signing up for a Hotmail account and e-mailing someone. Not the theory behind any of this, just the practical ability to do it. People will try to teach anything whether it's necessary or not.
Retro?!? Hey, I just listen to what I enjoy dammit. Just because I'm 21 doesn't mean that I have to like the crap that barely passes for music among many of my *ugh* peers. I tend to think they're a bunch of loser fuck-offs just as much as anyone and most of my friends would have to agree. It's not a retro thing at all, it's not an attempt to rebel or set myself apart. I listen to new music if it appeals to me, but frankly a lot of it just doesn't.
The first one had the 24 seconds. Actually, the version shown on Comedy Central had it. All it is is the bit in Castle Anthrax where everyone says "Get on with it!"
The real reason to get it is the amazing picture quality and commentary tracks. I've never imagined it could look that good.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC he saw one of his early films on tv at one point and was appalled at how it had been mangled. In order to be certain that this would not continue to happen from then on he set up his shots such that 4:3 would contain the full shot, but that nothing significant would be lost when it was matted for 16:9 to be projected in theaters. Thus the majority of Kubrick films are correctly in 4:3 on DVD and video, but actually slightly off in the theater. While not a "Kubrick film" Spartacus is a notable exception having a rather wide ratio, 2.2:1 (70mm) going by the back of the box for the Criterion DVD release. 1.85:1 (academy flat) and 2.35:1 (anamorphic scope aka Panavision/Cinemascope) tend to be the standard two widescreen ratios.
Likewise films before the 1950s were largely filmed in 4:3 (academy standard). This is the main reason why televisions are also 4:3. When the NTSC chose an aspect ratio standard they went with academy standard. Films later went widescreen to offer something above and beyond television.
Really? The film had massive cross-over appeal to both adults and children because it was so damn good. It wasn't demeaning, sappy, pointless or pandering. I can scarcely imagine that someone made it at all!
Likewise this is part of the problem. If children grew up with widescreen they wouldn't complain when they got older. I was thinking about this the other day actually. How with the increase in widescreen films in about 15-20 years we likely won't have a problem with it as they'll have been used to it. I fail to see a compelling reason to release movies targetted at children in pan and scan anyway. I doubt there's a matter of cost involved and as mentioned kids don't care, but adults often do.
By and large the problem is that the iPod seems to be very, very touchy and selective with the Firewire cards it works with. It's not limited to the Audigy. There are quite a few people with a variety of cards that have problems with it.
As for the Mac... well... duh. I imagine that Apple would test them with the hardware that they make. That's where many people think the problem is. Apple is used to products conforming far more often. On the PC you tend to get a much wider array of hardware all implementing the same thing.
As for the problem itself? Well... it works great, but every so often it will time out and the drive "skitters" before picking up again. This tends to introduce problems into the file being transferred. A fix for a particular VIA chipset was unofficially released that changed the timing IIRC and this has worked for many people with problematic cards.
So no. My problem is partially expecting Creative to properly follow a standard when they release hardware to the point that it will work with devices properly. Partly that the iPod... while a great device, has problems. Microsoft? Screw that. I have XP on my box for gaming, but otherwise spend time in Slackware. Aside from XP the only thing by MS I have is their odd strategy-gaming oriented joystick-mouse lovechild thingie. I've never installed a copy of Office or anything else.
*sigh* why do I feed the trolls?
I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I would be inclined to believe that it does. Personally I own an Audigy and an iPod and they don't work very well together. Creative apparently diverges from the 1394 standard thus the "SB1394" label. This is designed to work mainly with Creative devices although I doubt they've actually managed to do anything significant to it. That said iPod users frequently complain about it as the iPod can be rather touchy about the Firewire chipset it'll work with. Mine is just this side of usable (times out every so often and I get a badly transfered song, this also leads to slower transfer speeds in general).
To check into the iPod just a bit beyond the hype and positive comments check out the iPod support page (Windows iPod, but you can get to the Mac version from the same page). There are frequent problems with battery usage (it never turns off, just goes into a sleep mode which has often had serious power drain problems), connecting to the computer, firewire cards, etc. Not to mention the terrible (more or less complete lack of) manual and abyssmal software (MusicMatch Jukebox... an old version too as the newer ones apparently don't work. ephPod works much better and has many features that were excluded from MusicMatch, but sorely desired. I've gone terribly off-topic, but I do love my iPod despite it's faults.
So essentially a monopoly prevents us from having to worry about the problem of choice (and support as it relates to this)? I'm not even talking about a monopoly by Microsoft or any specific company, but the language you use seems to indicate that you think it would be better than trying to make diverse products work. The problems with this are many (it works, but it sucks/costs too much/doesn't really work/etc.) and the benefits are negligiable. Though I do understand the desire of the general public to dumb everything down to the point where they don't have to think at all and can just trust the monopoly to supply them.
Another poster mentioned open standards as the way to fix this properly and I have to agree. Standards allow competition, but provide a basic framework in which to contain it for the purposes of making it useful. Technology innovation pushes standards innovation (or at least, should... it seems too often that things get bogged down working in old standards, but that's another discussion altogether).
Nah, token.
An interesting idea on both counts actually. While it would seem obvious that you own the right to LP version it also brings up other issues. Let's say the particular album is remastered 20 years later. Do you own the rights to the remastered tracks?
To a certain degree a case can be made that you only own the rights to the product in their current fidelity. I would personally feel that you purchased a right to the music at the level of fidelity at which the original purchase was made, but this can be highly subjective. Overall though I'd say you have a right to the product as it sounded when you originally purchased it (from a copyright standpoint) but you still only have the right to the physical product in it's current form (no asking for you money back because you scratch a cd 5 years after buying it).
This logic would mean that you are on questionable ground in the first scenario, but are not in the right in the second.
I feel this brings up some important issues as to how these sorts of issues have been largely ignorable as until recently the intellectual property was directly connected to the physical media. If I bought a used cd I would pay less partially because the condition isn't as good. Does this mean though that since you bought an album on cassette for $0.50 at a garage sale you now own the rights to the same work in the same fidelity as being sold on cd for $17? How much is the ownership of the intellectual property and how much is the ownership of physical media containing it at a set level of fidelity (and presumably, lower levels of quality as well)?
I believe he means the extensive and informative extras that came with the real (read: extended) version. The first one was to get fanboys to spend extra cash to have it early and give something to Blockbuster and idiots who don't know any better or don't care.
Part of the problem is making those restrictions apply well beyond reasonable bounds because parents don't want to have to watch their children all the time. As a result a 16 year-old can drive and have sex (in most states) but cannot: buy an "M" rated videogame, watch an "R" or "NC-17" rated film, purchase pornography or most sexual devices. It's all too common to set age restrictions on minors designed to protect them, but go overboard on them.
Likewise as much as parents want to protect and benefit their children it is only right and acceptable for them to go so far. Minors have absolutely no political power, but frequently things are done to them "for their own good". At a certain point parents don't have the right to control their children even if they are below the age of majority.
Well... I guess if that's all you use it for then it isn't really useful. I don't though. I look at it as more of a small, low-storage, palmtop computer. Sure I use it to keep track of things, but I'm far more likely to use it to read the news or a book, keep a database of movie times, play games, store useful data, and a number of other things. I'd say that I use the calender and address book least of anything on it.
Now if the Palm platform offered more features much like the PocketPC lines but without the various problems of the PocketPC lines they might start pulling up a bit. I do think they may have gotten mired down in the idea of simply using it as an organizer themselves though, which is a shame.
I'm not as familiar with this as I am the rest of the pronto line, but the previous top of the line fully programmable remote, the Philips ProntoPro TSU6000 featured not only a fully customizable touchscreen, but a number of hard buttons as well. It also was the size of a rather largish PDA rather than a small dog. Still runs for $1,000 or so IIRC.
Precisely the sort of thing that's making online-only direct-sale AV equipment such an increasingly good market. That said there are some excellent products out there for excellent prices: Outlaw Audio, Home Theater Direct, and Axiom Audio (technically they sell B&M in Cananda, but not in the US). The problem being that you don't get to demo the equipment first and are often out a hefty shipping fee if you decide to return (HTD offers a free return if you're a first-time buyer IIRC).
In many areas I think that online-only directly marketed products stand to put a serious dent in some markets, but I doubt they'll ever take over. Word of mouth and excellent reviews can only do so much and some people will only feel comfortable buying in person.
Being beaten to death by killer robots by far outweighs any plans I've had for my own death. Then again I work in a lab with "Warning: RADIATION" on the door, with my back to the rad hood and frequently handle EtBr and other substances classed as potentially dangerous mutagens so uhm... put on some gloves.
Science is often dangerous (trust me, I've spilled a few drops of 6M HCl on myself), but usually the benefits outweigh. Sure I might create a deadly form of highly virulent, incredibly resistant, pathogenic S. Cerevisiae, but the likelihood of science causing having truly dangerous consequences is rather low.
Dammit... I've gone and put actual content in here when all I'd wanted to do was talk about my desire to be bludgeoned by killer robots. Damn brain, I'm gonna stab you with a Q-tip!
You obviously don't work in a molecular genetics lab. Most of the actual time working is spent waiting. Things take time in biology because life takes time and dammit but you're going to have to wait for that bacteria/yeast to grow before you can do anything with it. Likewise much of biology is still done on a lab bench rather than in computers. Computers tend to come into play mainly during the planning of experiments and in analysis of the data that's been collected. I understand your concept, but it's not really as feasible or realistic. Yes, science can be petty, catty, and political like all other fields, but it still doesn't operate in a way that makes this nearly as likely as you make it out to be. Especially the masturbatory fantasy part that leads it off. No offense intended :)
Even worse they'll (apparently) make sequels! I'm told that Kangaroo Jack 2 will take place in Las Vegas where the kangaroo has now stolen more money for some undisclosed reason.
I do think that part of the reason it did so well was because it was a rather dry time for movies appealing to idiots and children and thus raked in most of the money that is usually spent on keeping the whining shit factories quiet (but not at any of the films I attend... I recall during a "House of 1,000 Corpses" trailer in front of "Willard" one precocious young fuck asked what a corpse was, a friend of mine offered to make him very well acquainted with it).
Really... most of the absolute crap is sold to children. Disney seems to have figured this out with the glut of shitty direct-to-video sequels to decades old films that weren't much more than terrible cash-cows for children to begin with (Disney movies tend to be very much like Bollywood musicals... vapid, cheery, and crowd-pleasing... but with slightly less criminal influence in the making). Still they do well and almost any parent these days has a mess of them. Children will tolerate almost anything it seems and parents are all too happy to pay for it if they don't have to watch them too closely. Sadly there are also films that are reasonably fit to offend few people other than the guy at CAPAlert. I'd suggest the (entertaining but forgettable) "Catch Me While You Can" particularly, although it seems that there isn't much being put out in this realm and not much was done in the past that isn't disgustingly saccharine.
The other major market is artistic idiots. I've often heard from people watching terrible crap that they "just want something they don't have to think about". Any attempt to appeal to intelligence is lost on them as they merely want the lowest common denominator sit-com crap. They even make a point of wanting dumb romantic comedies that are predictable and dull since they require little to no thought, but are (presumably) entertaining. Oh, and don't make it too long. People hate getting value for their money or seeing any story that can't be crammed into the short time limit they're comfortable with. No chance for story, character development, or intelligent and thought-provoking dialogue, that'll take longer than 2 hours and might make someone unhappy!
Yeah... can't believe a product wouldn't run acceptably on a system that's only a few years old. Dammit, if you want a game to run right you better have built a new system within the year or expect it to look like slowly oozing mud.
That said, on technical matters it's a matter of seperating the wheat from the chaff. It's something you have to do with all reviews in order to get what you want. Read between the lines and try to understand more why the reviewer is saying it.
I tend to seek out negative reviews and opinions far more readily as a result. Usually negative reviewers will either give away their bias very readily and inform you on the issue rather than gushing about why it's so good. Maybe it's my generally pessimistic worldview, but a critical review tends to show weak points about why you don't want it and it leaves it up to you to determine if they outweigh.
Uhm... it will accept paper for a second pass to print on the back if you figure out the correct way to stick it into the slot and do so. It just doesn't do it automagically.
Actually this is the aspect I like least. I don't use Mozilla for anything but web browsing so I'd prefer that more time go into developing that. Partly it's due to the Unix philosophy, partly it's because I don't like suites (with web browsers especially I think this may be partly to blame when people think that Netscape/Mozilla/etc. is "the internet"), but mainly it's because I'm a bit of a throwback. I use Eudora when I'm in windows and KMail, PINE, MUTT, CSC, etc. under Linux. Cramming more "features" and bloating Mozilla just seems like the wrong way to go.
I doubt that's going to be much of a problem. As far as I'm aware they don't have a method devised yet of sucessfully blocking you from wanking to her in the manner of your choice. At least this way noone will unfortunately feel the urge to give her "music" a go and simply remain content with the liner.
Perhaps not a great idea in CS, but just about the only option in biology, physics, chemistry, etc. As a biology/microbiology major with only a minor in CS I'm more or less screwed if I don't get my PhD (besides, I want it). The minor is helping a bit as I nudge around a little in bioinformatics, but frankly it's not really all that exciting to a lot of people in biology. To most biologists bioinformatics is little more than another tool to be used and frankly I'd much rather be doing research.
Actually a new version is coming out soon (and I think may already be out) The "Boomstick Edition", basically this is a reprint of the limited edition released a few years ago by Anchor Bay and will contain the theatrical version and the director's cut (currently available as the "Official Bootleg").
Part of the problem stems from having two main versions of the film that get put out in limited editions and such then go away (limited editions with exclusive content suck, just give them cool packaging or something). Since the original limited edition came out just about a year before DVD really blew up in the general consumer market it's been getting rather high (~$50-100) prices second-hand.
As far as the best get the most recent version of either the theatrical, the official bootleg, or the new boomstick edition if you want both versions. It really depends on which version you prefer.
The Evil Dead itself has had more versions due to the age of the film and other issues (the recent limited edition has a booklet on all the various versions and the reasons for so many).
I'd have to agree. I'm not certain off the top of my head just how long it took Duke3d to come out, but it was quite a long time although perhaps it was only 3-4 years.
I'm still a student and thus largely insulated from this sort of thing. Still, I think that people are looking at the wrong issues here.
First it's more likely that people are simply pissed off. They're not the head jock anymore, they're drone #2817-G and noone gives a fuck who they dated in high school. Even worse the people they used to pick on back then matter now. They're doing something and rather than spend the minimal ammount of time required to understand how to use something they'd rather get pissed about it. "That damn geek expects me to learn this shit? I've got better things to do than read a manual writen by some science club loser."
Second is that these training classes don't seem entirely necessary. Indeed there's a lot of bloatware out there with obscure and pointless features that are a pain in the ass to get at. Still, you don't need to spend 8 hours having some idiot try to teach you how to use them. In some highly technical applications it may be necessary and useful to spend some time in training, but you probably don't need it for the next version of Word. Seriously. My school teaches 8 week courses on how to use Word and Netscape and they're unnnecessary crap. Back in high school there was a "Technology Literacy" class that would spend a day explaining the basics elements of the Windows UI, one day was spent almost entirely on right-click context menus, another on signing up for a Hotmail account and e-mailing someone. Not the theory behind any of this, just the practical ability to do it. People will try to teach anything whether it's necessary or not.
Retro?!? Hey, I just listen to what I enjoy dammit. Just because I'm 21 doesn't mean that I have to like the crap that barely passes for music among many of my *ugh* peers. I tend to think they're a bunch of loser fuck-offs just as much as anyone and most of my friends would have to agree. It's not a retro thing at all, it's not an attempt to rebel or set myself apart. I listen to new music if it appeals to me, but frankly a lot of it just doesn't.
The first one had the 24 seconds. Actually, the version shown on Comedy Central had it. All it is is the bit in Castle Anthrax where everyone says "Get on with it!"
The real reason to get it is the amazing picture quality and commentary tracks. I've never imagined it could look that good.