Copyright is more than just some corporate entity making money for 30+ years based on the work of someone else. Copyright is there so that those who make popular works can thrive, and so, make more popular books/programs. So, without copyright, authors, movie studios, and recording artists would not bring in enough money doing what they do to afford to live a comfortable lifestyle.
When it comes to movies, how many people does it take to make a movie, and how much money does it cost just to pay the actors, directors, writers, etc...? The initial box office sales may not be enough to even get back what went in to make the movie, so DVD/BluRay sales also help. And, the studios who make the movies also need enough extra money to be available to make other movies too, it's not just about making money on one movie, it is about having enough cash to survive if one or more movies do not do well(meaning they lose money for the studio).
Music recordings on the other hand are a much smaller operation, since you have the music artist(s), and then you only have the sound rooms and equipment for the recording process. The actual process to get music from the artist to the public does not take nearly as many people, and the actual costs for production are almost insignificant compared to the cost to make a movie, so the record labels and RIAA make far more profit on the sale of music than the movie studios and MPAA make.
You can argue that copyright may last far too long in the current system, but remember, people need to make a living. If you want talented people to continue making good music or movies, then you have to let them make a profit so they can live comfortably enough to continue making good products. There is also the idea that others should not profit off your work without your permission. So, if you make something, you don't want it stolen, even if you can make that "thing" again. Why should others gain from ANYTHING you make or do without YOUR permission? This is where agreements come into play, because when you work for someone else, there is a contract involved in most cases that says that what you do is owned by your employer. Those who create things can always demand that there is a non-transferable right to certain things as well, so your boss can't sell the rights to your work to someone else if such a contract were to be in place.
So, just think in these terms. Copyright may seem broken to those who simply want to download a song to listen to, but that is because the value of the recordings is overly inflated by the record labels and RIAA. The actual value of one recording should be on the order of $0.05(5 cents), with extra fees for the system of getting the music to you. The actual value of a movie is another story, because $20 for a legal copy of a movie may not be that far off. $20 for an audio CD vs. $20 for a BluRay movie....what is wrong with that picture?
One thing that should concern you is that the exact response of the human body to these signals is still not understood. Can you trust ANY study when these studies are intended to prove or disprove something in the first place, in regards to the health impact of being near a cell phone tower for an extended period of time? Also, think about all of the things that have been discovered to be harmful after decades of use, and then look at cell phones. You may remember DDT, Saccharin, and other things that have caused so many health problems.
So, don't go for it, just because you can't know for sure if there would be a health concern due to prolonged exposure.
In your dislike of Microsoft(which probably dates back to the old days of Microsoft vs. Netscape), you have missed what really happens(or happened since we are in the days of Windows 7, not Vista).
When you buy a computer from an OEM, the vast majority came with the OS pre-installed. Now, due to the volume of sales, the company doesn't "install" each and every setup clean and then put drivers and software on the machine, they go from a single hard drive image that they then place onto the hard drive of new machines. As a result, the cost to the OEM in terms of labor, both in terms of time spent setting up the machine, as well as in getting what is hopefully a reliable set of drivers and software is much lower. Without this, labor alone in setting up Windows with drivers and software would increase system prices by a significant amount.
So, what happens when someone complained about Vista and insisted on XP? The company has to go out of its way in terms of labor(remember, a very low percentage of people buying an OEM computer cared enough to insist on XP over Vista) to make a machine XP when the system is set to go out with Vista. It isn't like the company offered two machines, one with XP and one with Vista, it was the same model, so extra handling and such come into play.
From the Microsoft point of view, if an OEM wants to buy copies of XP, that is up to the OEM, Microsoft does not charge there, and Microsoft was not the one charging ANYTHING, except for the license and disc for XP. So, it wasn't Microsoft who was doing the sales. And sales, not Microsoft is where things come into play. In theory, if you order a system from an OEM with XP on it, and they ONLY put XP on the machine, there is no double charge. If you buy a system with Vista, and then pay for it to be downgraded by the company to XP, then you have to fight with the OEM about you being sold two operating systems when you only wanted one.
In any case, there was still the labor cost to manually place XP on the machine, and the company could easily charge $100 since it is an extra labor cost, and then give the XP license for free if you prefer to do it that way. If you want something out of the ordinary, you will generally have to pay for it. The only exception is when you get a REAL custom built machine where the company has to pick the OS rather than just grabbing a machine off the shelf and ship it since thousands of the same configuration have been put together with zero difference.
Blame Microsoft when they do something wrong, but in this case, if a sales rep on the phone sells you two operating systems and you only wanted one, then blame the sales person. This applies to EVERYTHING, where sales people will always try to sell more, and the buyer has to know when not to buy it. Now, it is also the option of the company selling something to only offer certain services on select items. High cost items will generally provide the greatest number of options when it comes to extras, while low cost items may not have certain things available. This really comes back to the idea that companies will be more inclined to take a "lesser profit" on extra services if they have already made a good profit on the sale.
So, how much money do YOU feel your time is worth? If you make $20/hour at your job, your employers would want to make at least $30/hour from the work you do to make it worth it to them, probably more. How much total time, from sales to installation of XP to shipping would it take to send out a specially configured system? Is it worth it for a company if they only make $10 total profit on the sale of a low-cost $400 computer tower?
The fact that most games have very little depth does not mean that games should not be developed that DO branch out. Those who are younger tend to prefer the more action based games, but those who are older look for more than shooters and non-stop action. Now, I am NOT talking about games where you play someone sitting at home chatting with the family or anything like that, but at the same time, do all games need to have the player control loners, soldiers, ex-soldiers, mercenaries, gang-bangers, and others who might be prone to violence in the first place? Do all the women in games need to be sluts, whores, or female versions of the main character who are similar to the main character to the point where they too are military/mercenary types with the idea that violence should be the first way to deal with every situation?
What really is different is that many people feel that violence may be necessary in some situations, but is something to be avoided for the most part. One thing that really marks games like Mass Effect as being different from the majority of games is the chance to avoid having the main character be someone who is ruthless, or just an asshole with a mission the game forces you to play through. Yes, there is violence, but you don't HAVE to kill everyone, and even when tempted, you don't have to give in to temptation. The idea of having someone to come home to, and not really wanting to be out there fighting all the time is missing.
Now, for those who don't know, many, or even most people who go to war really don't want to be there on the front lines. Even those who initially want to go to war will often find that they hate being stationed far from home in an uncomfortable environment far from friends, family, and kids. They want to get back home as soon as they can and get out of the hell hole that most war zones are. And that element is what you see missing from most games, the fact that it seems exciting to be out there, until you see a friend killed in an explosion with you barely avoiding the majority of the blast, and the stink of burned flesh making you want to throw up. It isn't anything glorious or fun, and even being shot ONCE can take you out of the action for a long time.
So, emotional depth does not mean that games NEED to be about that, but games that are more realistic about how it would be to be in some of these situations are what is missing. Cut scenes can generally be skipped for those who don't care about them, but there are a good number of people that WANT that movie experience in a game. Games have the ability to REPLACE movies for storyline, as long as people understand that the same way you may prefer action movies, others may prefer a comedy, romance, or drama. Don't try to force your tastes on the world by saying that most PEOPLE love the types of things you do.
There is a point at which "good enough" really applies. While offline SHOULD always hold the potential to be better, there will come a point where full 5 million polygon renderings will be the norm per living beings in games, and that may very well be enough to say 'we don't need anything beyond this'. Honestly, if our video cards can render several hundred 5 million polygon objects in real time, 100 frames per second, will there be much difference what offline can offer compared to that level of video card?
The real key is in showing true damages. Now, iTunes...how much goes to the artists, and how much goes to the record label? Or a CD. Now, how much is the physical medium, and how much is the cost of reproduction and distribution, since reproduction and distribution costs can be deducted since the record labels have to treat those as expenses, and not profits.
And then, the argument for the musicians being harmed is flawed since they get so little, and in some cases nothing from the online distribution of music in the first place.
You also can't count legal fees and such, since the lawyers would be paid if the case were going on or not. It is like insurance, you pay in case you need it, but even if you don't, you have to pay. Trumped up cases by the RIAA may increase the fees payed to lawyers, but if the RIAA wasn't trying to just exploit the system, these cases would never go to court in the first place because people wouldn't necessarily contest it if the charges were actually fair.
You move to another country, then that country becomes your home. It may take some time, and you may look back at where you came from, but if your old country has no jobs for you, then be happy where you are.
Now, the basic concept that I have is that when you go visit someone, you should respect the way THEY want you to behave. If it means you take off your shoes when entering their home, you take off your shoes. If they speak a different language, then YOU should put in the effort to learn that language, and not expect them to learn yours.
History may show that English speaking people may not have followed this, but just because others have misbehaved does not mean you have to follow their example. We should ALL strive to be better people. Now, being better people may mean being kind to visitors, but those who plan to MOVE to a country should follow the rules of the land, not just the laws, but what is accepted behavior.
This is a common misconception, that no one wants to work in a factory. No one wants to feel exploited, but at the same time, factories are a better place to work for those without an advanced education. Those working in the auto industry, even if they were only being paid $20/hour would probably still be fairly happy with their job. Factory work does NOT need to be a horrible experience, but bad management will make it(and just about any other work) a horrible experience.
The real key is how employees are treated, and to provide proper encouragement for hard work. The auto industry could be fixed by paying a fair BASE wage in manufacturing with a bonus based on volume of properly completed units that employee works on. Even in low-end manufacturing, start with a base minimum wage, but then offer a decent compensation based on properly produced products the employee has produced(with a QA process that looks to push quality, rather than just trying to avoid paying the person working in manufacturing). So, the higher the volume the person in manufacturing produces, the better the pay, and those who are fast and do a good job(vs. those who are fast but are sloppy) will get paid more.
The other side is to make employees feel pride in what they are doing, and to make people take pride in what they produce. Back in the mid 1990s, technical support was treated as a skilled job, and the manager I worked under took the attitude that if you could solve the customer problem with one phone call, it was better to take 3 hours on that one call than to make the customer call back again, and again, and again. As a result, we had very few people calling in a second or third time to solve their problems, and customer satisfaction with support was fairly high. Eventually we had a "suit" come in that treated technical support like customer service, where the average time on a call was more important than making sure that a customer problem was fixed. This "you have to average six minutes per call" attitude drove call volume through the roof, but also lowered the morale of employees and made people take less pride in their job because they couldn't take the time to make sure the job was done properly. That job STARTED where tech support was something employees could take pride in doing, and ended up taking the feeling of being responsible for our jobs go away. Fortunately or unfortunately, it also drove those with knowledge to get out of support into Operations as soon as possible, but it also made it so those who came from support had less desire to help the managers in support with problems due to how poor employees in support were treated.
There is a big misconception going on here that needs to be cleared up. The vast majority of Americans support LEGAL immigration, but the key is that most also do not want to see ghettos forming, or to have large FACTIONS in companies that are made up of immigrants. Basically, when you have large groups of non-English speaking people congregating together, rather than integrating into American society, that is when you have problems. Those who come to OUR country should learn the language of the land, and in the work force, American workers should NOT feel like they have to learn a foreign language just to work with other employees of the same company.
Now, I feel the same applies for other countries, where if I went to another country that did not speak English, people who plan to work there should be able to communicate in the language of the country they plan to move to, BEFORE they move there.
This is not an anti-immigrant attitude, but it is about making it where Americans are not kept out of the work force because immigrants DOMINATE a corporate environment. When you have too many Spanish speaking people in a company, you will drive out English speaking people. When you have a technical company with a majority of people from India, you will see Americans not feeling terribly comfortable. Basically, no one wants to feel like a minority, but when you intentionally move to another country, you accept that you will be in a minority, and in your own country, no one should feel like they belong to a minority. If there is a healthy mix of people, that is different than having one group dominate, and that is the root of the misconception.
Take a group of 10 people, and if 2 are from India, 2 are African American, 3 are Latino, and 3 are Caucasian, that will work well. You make it so you have 6 from India, or 6 are Latino, and the cultural balance will be off. Note that a key is also what culture a person feels they belong to. Many people from a Latino background are Americans, and while they have a love for the culture their parents or grandparents come from, they speak English as their first language and they have their loyalty to the USA, not some other country.
The problem is that too many people who have moved to the USA in recent years still feel that their OLD country is their home, because they have never accepted that the USA is their home. This is the problem, when immigrants not only take their experiences with them, but also keep their loyalty to their old country, and refuse to assimilate, it causes friction.
You have clearly never encountered machines that were illegally upgraded to Windows XP Pro by some "tech" who put it on the computer of his/her customers in an attempt to fix said machines. Here is how it works:
End user never makes a recovery CD/DVD set, and one is never provided with the computer. When Windows get badly corrupted(root kit, nasty piece of malware, etc), and the tech can't fix the problem without doing a clean install, many of these techs will do a clean install from a pirated Windows CD they have with them. Initially, there is no problem until that key gets flagged. The next Windows Update that comes through then sees that the machine is using a bogus key, and starts screaming about the copy being illegal.
Now, the problem is that the key that came with the computer does not work on the version that has been installed, and there is no way to fix the problem with the bogus version. So, end user calls a new tech to deal with the problem. Even if the customer has a valid key, if the OS refuses to accept it because the current install is a Pro or Ultimate version, there is no good solution. The end user never asked for the "upgraded version", but is now stuck with it, and with no way to downgrade.
What I wish Microsoft would do would be to have a downgrade method to go from Ultimate down to Home based on the key, even on a system that is up and running, just to protect end users who get scammed like this.
A big problem isn't from those who intentionally pirate, but from those who place an illegal copy of the operating system on the computers of other people. It is amazing how many customers have had "someone come fix their computer" and that person used a Windows XP Pro CD with key to "fix" the problem. Then they turn off automatic updates. The moment the customer does an update of the OS, the key used flags the OS as not being genuine.
One thing that I feel is needed when dealing with this sort of thing is for the OS to be the same, with the key used just being used to enable or disable features. In this way, you can "downgrade" from an Ultimate or Pro version to Home if you have this sort of thing happen to you. The so-called experts who put illegal copies of software on computers are the ones who need to go away, because they cause more trouble than they solve.
Have you ever thought that there is a genetic reason for this as well? I am not talking about sociopaths or anything like that, but there are some people that just seem to attract grief. In some cases, it is caused by physical appearance or behavioral reasons for the person to be picked on, but I have noticed over the years that the personality of a person CAN cause someone to be picked on.
In almost every group I have ever belonged to, there has ALWAYS been the one person who gets picked on, and this applies to the real world, as well as online groups. From this, I suspect there is a part of the human genome that inspires that in a group, 'the weakest link' will get more grief. It may be a natural selection type of thing which is also seen in other creatures, where there is no obvious reason for being ignored by the general population of a given species, even if the 'outcast' is not attacked.
Now, bullies are a different issue, because there are also some examples where SOME are overly aggressive in the same way that some are overly shy. This could also just be a part of evolution where individuals with a particular behavior pattern will tend to group together, and differentiate themselves from others without that behavior. Only time will tell if it will generate a true split within the human species over natural behavioral tendencies which may also be linked to a genetic disposition toward certain behaviors or attitudes.
So, there will be many different sources for this, and it is rather sad when these 'researchers' are so into trying to prove something, that they miss the possibility of multiple reasons for certain behavioral trends. And yes, those drawn to fields where they do a 'study' to prove this or that do seem to be so focused on trying to prove a theory that other very obvious things related to that theory are missed. So, like bullies, and those prone to be picked on, researchers will tend to be blind to their own weaknesses, and over the next 50 generations, it may get worse.
When it comes to which company is the BEST, there are several things you need to look at:
For the area you live in or spend the most time in, how is the coverage map? I am not talking about 2G vs. 3G or anything like that, but more, do you have dead spots on the various networks?
How much traveling do you do? The more you travel, the more important the overall service coverage area is. Also, 3G, while it speeds things up quite a bit, it may not really matter to you as long as you have data service that works.
Do you want to TRUST your cell phone service provider? Verizon is probably the company I would trust the least when it comes to a bill(land line or cell phone). Will there be a random $10 that they will take off if you complain, meaning you MUST check your bill in detail each month for "strange" fees? This is what I hate about Verizon, they have a long track record of just throwing random fees at customers, knowing that a very low percentage will be checking their bill and catch it. How about the sudden bump in early termination fees that Verizon just put out there that doesn't specify which phone you have? So, a cheap $50 phone could hold the same early termination fee as a $400 Blackberry(unless the new fees specify based on phone what the termination fee will be).
Now, with those questions in mind, AT&T for overall areas of service may be just a little smaller than Verizon. In general, for overall quality of service, Verizon is probably the best. Keep in mind that the AT&T commercials are correct, the data service will generally not work while talking on the phone. With a speaker phone, this IS a key weakness for Verizon. At the same time, Verizon service does tend to be a bit better in many or possibly most areas. Considering they are also the local phone company for many on the east coast of the USA, this makes some sense since they have local crews everywhere for servicing the normal land lines. Third is Sprint, and their coverage area as a whole is a lot worse. They are good in many places, but in rural areas, it is hit or miss how good or bad the service will be. T-mobile is also short on coverage area, with many areas not able to get T-mobile service, and I am not just talking about little towns in the mountains, but in areas with over 10,000 people living in it.
If you travel overseas, GSM is pretty dominant, so AT&T and T-mobile phones can easily just have a sim chip put into them to let you use a local carrier while you are there. If you have a locked phone(which most are), regulations in the USA require that the provider provide an unlock code so you can use it while traveling.
When it comes to 3G coverage, Verizon clearly has the better network, but as I mentioned, for most people, 3G is nice but isn't necessary for most things. I use my phone to get traffic updates for my GPS, and others use their phone as a cellular modem(bluetooth connection on their laptop). Just keep in mind that not all phones will let you use them as a way to get data for other devices, and it can also cost more per month from your cell provider(they give you unlimited bandwidth on the phone, but if you use tethering to use that phone as a modem, you have to pay for bandwidth usage).
Blackberry services...they are different from your average smartphone service when it comes to data. As a result, you get some benefits from a Blackberry, but you may run into other headaches with that Blackberry service.
So, consider, but just keep in mind you will probably be stuck in a 2 year contract or subject to an early termination fee.
On a related note, the iPhone for all its functionality and apps and such is very much locked into AT&T(with a Verizon version due in the next few weeks from what I have read). With all the hype, I have not heard enough about comparisons of how it is as a phone compared to other phones on AT&T. The dropped call issues on the iPhone COULD be service related, but it could also jus
Nuts who expect the world to change to cater to THEIR special needs are the ones we need to ban though. Seriously, the world should not revolve around any ONE person or people with "special needs" if they have not earned it via public service.
If you name one product after a character in a book, that generally will not upset people, but when you start naming multiple products after characters or things written by the same author, that DOES become a problem. It isn't about trademarks as much as Google just naming multiple products after someone elses works, and then trying to trademark them.
I think you also missed a key factor, and that is the concept of the GPU being improved. Intel has had the advantage in terms of CPU performance, so Intel is trying to improve their graphics performance now. And, if the new GPU isn't up to the task, THAT is where you CAN focus.
Now, let's be honest, the low end of the market is where integrated graphics really comes into play. So, we are talking about the $400 computer towers you can buy from HP, Gateway, and Dell. And for THOSE, you need the combined CPU+GPU price to be reasonable.
The AMD 790GX with the integrated Radeon 3300 is a few generations back now, but the newer generations for integrated are not really that much faster I don't think. Still, you have to compare the combination of low end CPU with the integrated graphics to see the true value.
Will we see the i5s with the better graphics in those $400 towers, or will they end up being up in the $600 range? For all the improvements, Intel may not be releasing anything that will really change the balance of power in the low end of the market.
As far as power usage, I think many people are a bit too hung up on how much a computer adds to the electric bill. The real line is when you can exchange your space heater for a computer tower due to power usage and heat generation. Or, power draw comes into play when you want to save on battery life in a laptop/netbook. Power also comes into play when you need to vent the heat from a computer. For overall use though, most people REALLY don't care about the power draw, especially when they are buying a faster computer.
So, price for a motherboard+CPU+memory on the AMD side, vs. a COMPARABLE motherboard+CPU+memory on the Intel side. Remember, video performance is a bit more important under Vista and Windows 7 compared to XP if you leave Aero turned on, so the GPU performance DOES impact how good a machine feels to use now. Up to this point, the FEEL of a $400 Intel based tower hasn't felt as good as a $400 AMD based tower overall. That is what you have to look at in the low end.
A major part of the problem is that since real violence can, and in most cases will lead to death, it really is something to be avoided. This is one thing that most games fail at, and that is making it unpleasant to be in the middle of a lot of gunfire and such. This is where game design comes in, making the game, not about running around shooting people, but about trying to stay out of the line of fire while trying to accomplish your objectives.
If you have played the original Thief, it really pushed that idea, where you don't WANT to be seen or caught. Games where there is violence, but as more of a "this is the environment you live in, and it is a challenge staying alive while trying to live your life" type of thing WOULD be popular as long as there is a good story behind it. Games where you have to talk your way out of fights, because a real fight would get you killed would make a lot of sense.
I didn't say they should not be taxed, but that the taxes should be paid by those who have access to the services. For example, someone living in New York should not have to pay for local services provided in California. Also, if I go out of state to make a purchase, should I have to pay a SALES tax in the state I live in? Paying INCOME taxes makes sense for a business, but you have to look at what resources the business will be using.
This is really what it comes down to, fair taxation. The idea that police, fire departments, and emergency services have to be paid for makes sense, and having it paid for by those who have access to these services if they are needed makes sense. So, sales taxes make sense, since even those visiting will WANT those services to be available. So, what about the Internet? If the local Internet Service Providers are paying their taxes in the places they provide service are doing all the maintenance, and the government has not paid for the deployment or maintenance of the lines, then it does not make sense for those out of state to be forced to pay a sales tax.
This goes back to the problem of where tax money comes from and goes. Shouldn't schools be paid for by EVERYONE living in that school district, not just those who own property in that district? If I were to put up a walled community, provide private police, medical, and fire services, and use NOTHING from the outside, then those living in that community really use nothing from the outside, except perhaps roads to bring supplies in and out. People living inside would not feel that they should have to pay for the services of those outside since their entire community would be cared for. On the flip side, federal income taxes, and even state income taxes would make SOME sense to pay since it is expected that the government DOES need tax money to pay the representatives of the people.
Oh, and to answer your unspoken question, Long Island is an expensive place, but teachers in many districts make more in under three quarters of a year worth of work than most people working in that area. Looking at your figure, they make $50,000 for how many weeks of actual work each year? Remember, all those school holidays, and summers off, and government holidays....If I could take my current income and get that many paid days off each year, I'd be a lot happier, that's for sure.
As for government, if they would cut services to pay off the debts so they could in turn lower taxes over time, people wouldn't mind. But running a deficit year after year after year, with no intention of ever getting the debts paid off is also a part of the problem.
And, for an out-of-state company, the taxes would NEVER go to the local community, because the business isn't in that local community. There is the other problem of state governments spending so foolishly that NO ONE would approve. When public school teachers make upwards of $80,000 to teach from September through June, with MANY vacations and days off due to government holidays on top of that, there is a huge problem, and no one seems to be willing to step up and DO anything about it.
Why should government offices and schools be closed for Columbus Day for example? It is one thing to record things in history books, but SERIOUSLY, in times of financial difficulty, why are there so many PAID days off for government employees? The governments need to just re-evaluate the pay they give employees as well, and make sure they are appropriate for the local cost of living and what is being paid in the private sector. If someone in the private sector gets paid $25,000/year to answer a phone, then a government employee doing the same job should be getting paid $25,000/year, not $40,000/year plus better benefits and a pension on top of it. How about caps on pensions where people can NOT collect a pension for longer than 2/3rds of the time they were working(meaning 30 years of service would only provide 20 years of pension)?
Cut the cost(not size) of government, and the need for all this extra tax money would go way way down.
When you think about it, the problem with most of the taxes imposed by states is that the idea is to pay for government provided services. Now, for out of state businesses, shouldn't the ONLY real burden be on the transit systems(roads and rails)? The postal system already charges money for delivering things, so really, it is just about transit systems. Sales taxes, such as they are, are a bit foolish to impose on out of state entities since the equipment that handles the actual exchange of money is generally not in the state demanding that sales taxes are collected. Basically, if a financial transaction takes place outside of a state, I don't feel that state has the right to demand money for the transaction.
Now, a national sales tax would eliminate this issue, or some other system.
The real problem that many states are running into is that they are run like governments, spending money they don't have and will NEVER have to provide services that will never end up with a net profit. Paying employees too much money, giving too much PAID time off(including the dozens of government holidays where other businesses stay open), and really, just spending too much for the tax income they bring in. If a private business were to try operating like that, they would be bankrupt within a year. So, the states are all crying that they are broke while paying assistants to government employees upwards of $80,000 per year.
There are different sets of mental abilities that people of both genders have, and while some people will be very strong in some, they also can end up very weak in others. It is also the perception of the word "intelligent" that can also differ from person to person, or from ethnic group to ethnic group. As a result, you can have people who score very high in certain types of tests, yet if you throw them into an unusual situation, they won't have the slightest idea how to handle it.
The ability to come up with solutions to different problems is the perfect example of this. You can take someone with amazing abilities in mathematics or physics, but they might not be able to come up with a good solution on how to improve the functional efficiency of a business, group, or come up with other solutions outside their area of expertise. In this regard, their high intelligence is limited to a narrow area.
Being able to evaluate problems with systems of doing things may also be an area where people considered to be intelligent might have trouble, but at the same time they can handle very advanced scientific problems quickly and easily. A part of this is that people tend to either focus on specifics, or generalities. While some will really dig deep to find a detailed solution to a problem thrown at them, others will look at the situation from a "big picture" perspective and figure out a USE for what the detail oriented people come up with. Women and men both have the ability to fall into either group, but this idea that intelligence can be easily evaluated without looking at other mental strengths and weaknesses of the individual is what is flawed.
You can also break things down into areas such as memorization ability, the ability and speed to learn a new concept, and the ability to analyze and apply knowledge to various very different situations. If you take some Math majors from MIT and try to throw them into a situation that calls for a solution that does not call for a mathematical solution, would they be able to find the solution? Knowledge and Wisdom.....one is how much a person knows and can recall, and the other is the application of knowledge. One without the other tends to be fairly useless, but without wisdom, knowledge becomes useless. How many people do YOU consider to be idiots because they can't come up with good solutions to problems, even though they have very obvious mental strengths? It also requires a certain type of thinking to see systematic flaws in different areas, and it is unfortunate that many people don't understand this.
And finally, it takes the cooperation of DIFFERENT people with different mental strengths to come up with solutions to many things. The problem is that too many people fail to see their own weaknesses, and where they NEED the help of people with a very different way of approaching problem solving.
One thing to keep in mind is that since we are at the point where textures themselves are high enough quality for things to look very good. So, the focus then becomes motion and in the details. Things like physics, and how objects interact are where a lot of the focus is moving to, as well as things like motion, and in the really TINY details that you may not notice when things are in motion, but are still there(like the fuzz and frayed edges on worn clothes, or sweaters). These sorts of things may not be required, but they do add to things. Water is one of those things that people keep pointing to, but improvements in how REAL things feel in a game or computer rendering are what make NEW games look better than things from previous generations.
A big problem that people need to remember is that just because the highest end cards have a lot of power to handle the newest features does not mean that the low end DX11 cards do. This is why adoption of even DirectX 10 has been low, because developers need to code based on what consumers will have in their computers, and if most people can't use a feature, that reduces how attractive that feature is when it comes to selling the game/application. DX11 may not be limited ONLY to Windows 7 this time around, but it will still be limited to people with a DX11 class GPU in their system. I am still seeing many low-end systems with the Geforce 6150LE in them these days, as well as the crappy Intel graphics, so it is clear that it will take at least six years before DX 9 is finally gone(because I expect to see new machines sold with Geforce 6150LEs for the next two years STILL being sold retail).
The big names in the retail/mail order computer field, HP/Compaq, Dell, and Gateway/eMachines are encouraging a shift to newer generations. If this is because they have too high an inventory, or are just unwilling to transition to newer generations I don't know. It is just annoying that THEY are holding us back. I know on the AMD side that it would be NICE to see more entry level systems with an integrated AMD graphics chipset since these not only perform better, but also support the newer standards.
Many jobs treat the higher end technical positions as being salaried. This means there is no overtime, in the way a manager is just expected to do the job, even if it means working late, and still getting no extra money for it. The trade-off is that you don't have people watching over you and micro-managing you since you are in charge of your area of responsibility. If you are in a "grunt" style position where you are under a manager who stays on top of you, you need to make it clear that:
A) you are responsible for your job getting done, meaning you should be left alone to get the job done, but that it means if things break in the middle of the night, you ARE responsible to get them fixed.
or
B) You are "just an employee", meaning you deserve overtime, and there SHOULD be some sort of compensation for being on-call, either rolled into your normal pay, or overtime pay.
In system administration positions, as a responsible point of contact, the admins normally get paid with on-call time being a part of the pay. It is expected, and falls under A. Note that in that type of position, there are others to share the on-call duty with, so you might only be on call for one week out of four for example, and you only get woken up when the on-call person doesn't respond. Again, it is about being responsible and taking charge, or about just being an employee without any sense of responsibility for the service you help provide.
When electricity and the telephone were new, the thought that the world would be focused on improvements and technology would be laughable. Inventors were few and far between, so there was a lot of room for just writing about crazy ideas about what the future may hold for new inventions. Once the personal computer became common(beyond the early adopters), the future, and what sort of inventions might come out has really dropped.
So, wireless communications have gone personal in the form of cell phones. Video calls are almost here(it is here, but not common and not good enough for mainstream). Even things like being able to just hop on a plane and be in Europe in 6-9 hours(from the USA) used to be an element of science fiction. So, where do we go from here? Space and space travel. Instant transport(transporter technology from Star Trek) is there. Flying cars as well, and robotics....all have been done before technology has made them possible.
So, what we really need is a new generation that has been raised on the current technology to look forward and come up with something new. In the same way that those older than 40 already should expect that future "the next big thing" will come from those much younger, due to having grown up with technology being EVERYWHERE, when it comes to writing, the same expectation should be there.
It really just comes from the perspective of the writers needing to really REACH to come up with a new idea, writers tend to go from their own experiences, and then extending from there based on the latest scientific releases. Asimov used the positron to explain how robots worked(their "thinking") for example. But, much of what has been in the works for science is really in the hard-core stage, where a lot of particle physics comes into play. Or you see work going on discovering planets around stars, but really, no really new on a conceptual basis has been hitting the news.
Looking for new planets...old new energy sources....old flight...old space travel....old concept, but aside from how it is implemented, not terribly new.
We are seeing the start of people taking a trip into orbit, but even living on other planets, meeting alien life, and so on has been done enough where it just isn't NEW anymore. Even the future evolution of humanity has been done a bit, though "future humans" tend to be very like the humans of today, just with better technology available to them.
So, what new things that have not been thought of yet will come out? It really may take another 50-100 years before Sci-Fi really wakes back up, just because something really really different needs to be invented that will amaze people. Think about it, short of aliens REALLY showing up here on Earth, is there any scientific invention that would really surprise us anymore?
My own expectation for the next few hundred years is more like Babylon 5 than Star Trek....human society and nature have not had a real push to change, and even the idea of "try to be nice to others" seems to be fading away, where there is more encouragement to be an obnoxious ass than a decent person. So, who knows what the future may hold, but the future of society rather than the technology of the future is where there is more room for writing right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright is more than just some corporate entity making money for 30+ years based on the work of someone else. Copyright is there so that those who make popular works can thrive, and so, make more popular books/programs. So, without copyright, authors, movie studios, and recording artists would not bring in enough money doing what they do to afford to live a comfortable lifestyle.
When it comes to movies, how many people does it take to make a movie, and how much money does it cost just to pay the actors, directors, writers, etc...? The initial box office sales may not be enough to even get back what went in to make the movie, so DVD/BluRay sales also help. And, the studios who make the movies also need enough extra money to be available to make other movies too, it's not just about making money on one movie, it is about having enough cash to survive if one or more movies do not do well(meaning they lose money for the studio).
Music recordings on the other hand are a much smaller operation, since you have the music artist(s), and then you only have the sound rooms and equipment for the recording process. The actual process to get music from the artist to the public does not take nearly as many people, and the actual costs for production are almost insignificant compared to the cost to make a movie, so the record labels and RIAA make far more profit on the sale of music than the movie studios and MPAA make.
You can argue that copyright may last far too long in the current system, but remember, people need to make a living. If you want talented people to continue making good music or movies, then you have to let them make a profit so they can live comfortably enough to continue making good products. There is also the idea that others should not profit off your work without your permission. So, if you make something, you don't want it stolen, even if you can make that "thing" again. Why should others gain from ANYTHING you make or do without YOUR permission? This is where agreements come into play, because when you work for someone else, there is a contract involved in most cases that says that what you do is owned by your employer. Those who create things can always demand that there is a non-transferable right to certain things as well, so your boss can't sell the rights to your work to someone else if such a contract were to be in place.
So, just think in these terms. Copyright may seem broken to those who simply want to download a song to listen to, but that is because the value of the recordings is overly inflated by the record labels and RIAA. The actual value of one recording should be on the order of $0.05(5 cents), with extra fees for the system of getting the music to you. The actual value of a movie is another story, because $20 for a legal copy of a movie may not be that far off. $20 for an audio CD vs. $20 for a BluRay movie....what is wrong with that picture?
One thing that should concern you is that the exact response of the human body to these signals is still not understood. Can you trust ANY study when these studies are intended to prove or disprove something in the first place, in regards to the health impact of being near a cell phone tower for an extended period of time? Also, think about all of the things that have been discovered to be harmful after decades of use, and then look at cell phones. You may remember DDT, Saccharin, and other things that have caused so many health problems.
So, don't go for it, just because you can't know for sure if there would be a health concern due to prolonged exposure.
In your dislike of Microsoft(which probably dates back to the old days of Microsoft vs. Netscape), you have missed what really happens(or happened since we are in the days of Windows 7, not Vista).
When you buy a computer from an OEM, the vast majority came with the OS pre-installed. Now, due to the volume of sales, the company doesn't "install" each and every setup clean and then put drivers and software on the machine, they go from a single hard drive image that they then place onto the hard drive of new machines. As a result, the cost to the OEM in terms of labor, both in terms of time spent setting up the machine, as well as in getting what is hopefully a reliable set of drivers and software is much lower. Without this, labor alone in setting up Windows with drivers and software would increase system prices by a significant amount.
So, what happens when someone complained about Vista and insisted on XP? The company has to go out of its way in terms of labor(remember, a very low percentage of people buying an OEM computer cared enough to insist on XP over Vista) to make a machine XP when the system is set to go out with Vista. It isn't like the company offered two machines, one with XP and one with Vista, it was the same model, so extra handling and such come into play.
From the Microsoft point of view, if an OEM wants to buy copies of XP, that is up to the OEM, Microsoft does not charge there, and Microsoft was not the one charging ANYTHING, except for the license and disc for XP. So, it wasn't Microsoft who was doing the sales. And sales, not Microsoft is where things come into play. In theory, if you order a system from an OEM with XP on it, and they ONLY put XP on the machine, there is no double charge. If you buy a system with Vista, and then pay for it to be downgraded by the company to XP, then you have to fight with the OEM about you being sold two operating systems when you only wanted one.
In any case, there was still the labor cost to manually place XP on the machine, and the company could easily charge $100 since it is an extra labor cost, and then give the XP license for free if you prefer to do it that way. If you want something out of the ordinary, you will generally have to pay for it. The only exception is when you get a REAL custom built machine where the company has to pick the OS rather than just grabbing a machine off the shelf and ship it since thousands of the same configuration have been put together with zero difference.
Blame Microsoft when they do something wrong, but in this case, if a sales rep on the phone sells you two operating systems and you only wanted one, then blame the sales person. This applies to EVERYTHING, where sales people will always try to sell more, and the buyer has to know when not to buy it. Now, it is also the option of the company selling something to only offer certain services on select items. High cost items will generally provide the greatest number of options when it comes to extras, while low cost items may not have certain things available. This really comes back to the idea that companies will be more inclined to take a "lesser profit" on extra services if they have already made a good profit on the sale.
So, how much money do YOU feel your time is worth? If you make $20/hour at your job, your employers would want to make at least $30/hour from the work you do to make it worth it to them, probably more. How much total time, from sales to installation of XP to shipping would it take to send out a specially configured system? Is it worth it for a company if they only make $10 total profit on the sale of a low-cost $400 computer tower?
So, who wants to start up a fundraiser to pay Google to shut down operations in China?
The fact that most games have very little depth does not mean that games should not be developed that DO branch out. Those who are younger tend to prefer the more action based games, but those who are older look for more than shooters and non-stop action. Now, I am NOT talking about games where you play someone sitting at home chatting with the family or anything like that, but at the same time, do all games need to have the player control loners, soldiers, ex-soldiers, mercenaries, gang-bangers, and others who might be prone to violence in the first place? Do all the women in games need to be sluts, whores, or female versions of the main character who are similar to the main character to the point where they too are military/mercenary types with the idea that violence should be the first way to deal with every situation?
What really is different is that many people feel that violence may be necessary in some situations, but is something to be avoided for the most part. One thing that really marks games like Mass Effect as being different from the majority of games is the chance to avoid having the main character be someone who is ruthless, or just an asshole with a mission the game forces you to play through. Yes, there is violence, but you don't HAVE to kill everyone, and even when tempted, you don't have to give in to temptation. The idea of having someone to come home to, and not really wanting to be out there fighting all the time is missing.
Now, for those who don't know, many, or even most people who go to war really don't want to be there on the front lines. Even those who initially want to go to war will often find that they hate being stationed far from home in an uncomfortable environment far from friends, family, and kids. They want to get back home as soon as they can and get out of the hell hole that most war zones are. And that element is what you see missing from most games, the fact that it seems exciting to be out there, until you see a friend killed in an explosion with you barely avoiding the majority of the blast, and the stink of burned flesh making you want to throw up. It isn't anything glorious or fun, and even being shot ONCE can take you out of the action for a long time.
So, emotional depth does not mean that games NEED to be about that, but games that are more realistic about how it would be to be in some of these situations are what is missing. Cut scenes can generally be skipped for those who don't care about them, but there are a good number of people that WANT that movie experience in a game. Games have the ability to REPLACE movies for storyline, as long as people understand that the same way you may prefer action movies, others may prefer a comedy, romance, or drama. Don't try to force your tastes on the world by saying that most PEOPLE love the types of things you do.
There is a point at which "good enough" really applies. While offline SHOULD always hold the potential to be better, there will come a point where full 5 million polygon renderings will be the norm per living beings in games, and that may very well be enough to say 'we don't need anything beyond this'. Honestly, if our video cards can render several hundred 5 million polygon objects in real time, 100 frames per second, will there be much difference what offline can offer compared to that level of video card?
The real key is in showing true damages. Now, iTunes...how much goes to the artists, and how much goes to the record label? Or a CD. Now, how much is the physical medium, and how much is the cost of reproduction and distribution, since reproduction and distribution costs can be deducted since the record labels have to treat those as expenses, and not profits.
And then, the argument for the musicians being harmed is flawed since they get so little, and in some cases nothing from the online distribution of music in the first place.
You also can't count legal fees and such, since the lawyers would be paid if the case were going on or not. It is like insurance, you pay in case you need it, but even if you don't, you have to pay. Trumped up cases by the RIAA may increase the fees payed to lawyers, but if the RIAA wasn't trying to just exploit the system, these cases would never go to court in the first place because people wouldn't necessarily contest it if the charges were actually fair.
You move to another country, then that country becomes your home. It may take some time, and you may look back at where you came from, but if your old country has no jobs for you, then be happy where you are.
Now, the basic concept that I have is that when you go visit someone, you should respect the way THEY want you to behave. If it means you take off your shoes when entering their home, you take off your shoes. If they speak a different language, then YOU should put in the effort to learn that language, and not expect them to learn yours.
History may show that English speaking people may not have followed this, but just because others have misbehaved does not mean you have to follow their example. We should ALL strive to be better people. Now, being better people may mean being kind to visitors, but those who plan to MOVE to a country should follow the rules of the land, not just the laws, but what is accepted behavior.
This is a common misconception, that no one wants to work in a factory. No one wants to feel exploited, but at the same time, factories are a better place to work for those without an advanced education. Those working in the auto industry, even if they were only being paid $20/hour would probably still be fairly happy with their job. Factory work does NOT need to be a horrible experience, but bad management will make it(and just about any other work) a horrible experience.
The real key is how employees are treated, and to provide proper encouragement for hard work. The auto industry could be fixed by paying a fair BASE wage in manufacturing with a bonus based on volume of properly completed units that employee works on. Even in low-end manufacturing, start with a base minimum wage, but then offer a decent compensation based on properly produced products the employee has produced(with a QA process that looks to push quality, rather than just trying to avoid paying the person working in manufacturing). So, the higher the volume the person in manufacturing produces, the better the pay, and those who are fast and do a good job(vs. those who are fast but are sloppy) will get paid more.
The other side is to make employees feel pride in what they are doing, and to make people take pride in what they produce. Back in the mid 1990s, technical support was treated as a skilled job, and the manager I worked under took the attitude that if you could solve the customer problem with one phone call, it was better to take 3 hours on that one call than to make the customer call back again, and again, and again. As a result, we had very few people calling in a second or third time to solve their problems, and customer satisfaction with support was fairly high. Eventually we had a "suit" come in that treated technical support like customer service, where the average time on a call was more important than making sure that a customer problem was fixed. This "you have to average six minutes per call" attitude drove call volume through the roof, but also lowered the morale of employees and made people take less pride in their job because they couldn't take the time to make sure the job was done properly. That job STARTED where tech support was something employees could take pride in doing, and ended up taking the feeling of being responsible for our jobs go away. Fortunately or unfortunately, it also drove those with knowledge to get out of support into Operations as soon as possible, but it also made it so those who came from support had less desire to help the managers in support with problems due to how poor employees in support were treated.
There is a big misconception going on here that needs to be cleared up. The vast majority of Americans support LEGAL immigration, but the key is that most also do not want to see ghettos forming, or to have large FACTIONS in companies that are made up of immigrants. Basically, when you have large groups of non-English speaking people congregating together, rather than integrating into American society, that is when you have problems. Those who come to OUR country should learn the language of the land, and in the work force, American workers should NOT feel like they have to learn a foreign language just to work with other employees of the same company.
Now, I feel the same applies for other countries, where if I went to another country that did not speak English, people who plan to work there should be able to communicate in the language of the country they plan to move to, BEFORE they move there.
This is not an anti-immigrant attitude, but it is about making it where Americans are not kept out of the work force because immigrants DOMINATE a corporate environment. When you have too many Spanish speaking people in a company, you will drive out English speaking people. When you have a technical company with a majority of people from India, you will see Americans not feeling terribly comfortable. Basically, no one wants to feel like a minority, but when you intentionally move to another country, you accept that you will be in a minority, and in your own country, no one should feel like they belong to a minority. If there is a healthy mix of people, that is different than having one group dominate, and that is the root of the misconception.
Take a group of 10 people, and if 2 are from India, 2 are African American, 3 are Latino, and 3 are Caucasian, that will work well. You make it so you have 6 from India, or 6 are Latino, and the cultural balance will be off. Note that a key is also what culture a person feels they belong to. Many people from a Latino background are Americans, and while they have a love for the culture their parents or grandparents come from, they speak English as their first language and they have their loyalty to the USA, not some other country.
The problem is that too many people who have moved to the USA in recent years still feel that their OLD country is their home, because they have never accepted that the USA is their home. This is the problem, when immigrants not only take their experiences with them, but also keep their loyalty to their old country, and refuse to assimilate, it causes friction.
You have clearly never encountered machines that were illegally upgraded to Windows XP Pro by some "tech" who put it on the computer of his/her customers in an attempt to fix said machines. Here is how it works:
End user never makes a recovery CD/DVD set, and one is never provided with the computer. When Windows get badly corrupted(root kit, nasty piece of malware, etc), and the tech can't fix the problem without doing a clean install, many of these techs will do a clean install from a pirated Windows CD they have with them. Initially, there is no problem until that key gets flagged. The next Windows Update that comes through then sees that the machine is using a bogus key, and starts screaming about the copy being illegal.
Now, the problem is that the key that came with the computer does not work on the version that has been installed, and there is no way to fix the problem with the bogus version. So, end user calls a new tech to deal with the problem. Even if the customer has a valid key, if the OS refuses to accept it because the current install is a Pro or Ultimate version, there is no good solution. The end user never asked for the "upgraded version", but is now stuck with it, and with no way to downgrade.
What I wish Microsoft would do would be to have a downgrade method to go from Ultimate down to Home based on the key, even on a system that is up and running, just to protect end users who get scammed like this.
A big problem isn't from those who intentionally pirate, but from those who place an illegal copy of the operating system on the computers of other people. It is amazing how many customers have had "someone come fix their computer" and that person used a Windows XP Pro CD with key to "fix" the problem. Then they turn off automatic updates. The moment the customer does an update of the OS, the key used flags the OS as not being genuine.
One thing that I feel is needed when dealing with this sort of thing is for the OS to be the same, with the key used just being used to enable or disable features. In this way, you can "downgrade" from an Ultimate or Pro version to Home if you have this sort of thing happen to you. The so-called experts who put illegal copies of software on computers are the ones who need to go away, because they cause more trouble than they solve.
Have you ever thought that there is a genetic reason for this as well? I am not talking about sociopaths or anything like that, but there are some people that just seem to attract grief. In some cases, it is caused by physical appearance or behavioral reasons for the person to be picked on, but I have noticed over the years that the personality of a person CAN cause someone to be picked on.
In almost every group I have ever belonged to, there has ALWAYS been the one person who gets picked on, and this applies to the real world, as well as online groups. From this, I suspect there is a part of the human genome that inspires that in a group, 'the weakest link' will get more grief. It may be a natural selection type of thing which is also seen in other creatures, where there is no obvious reason for being ignored by the general population of a given species, even if the 'outcast' is not attacked.
Now, bullies are a different issue, because there are also some examples where SOME are overly aggressive in the same way that some are overly shy. This could also just be a part of evolution where individuals with a particular behavior pattern will tend to group together, and differentiate themselves from others without that behavior. Only time will tell if it will generate a true split within the human species over natural behavioral tendencies which may also be linked to a genetic disposition toward certain behaviors or attitudes.
So, there will be many different sources for this, and it is rather sad when these 'researchers' are so into trying to prove something, that they miss the possibility of multiple reasons for certain behavioral trends. And yes, those drawn to fields where they do a 'study' to prove this or that do seem to be so focused on trying to prove a theory that other very obvious things related to that theory are missed. So, like bullies, and those prone to be picked on, researchers will tend to be blind to their own weaknesses, and over the next 50 generations, it may get worse.
When it comes to which company is the BEST, there are several things you need to look at:
For the area you live in or spend the most time in, how is the coverage map? I am not talking about 2G vs. 3G or anything like that, but more, do you have dead spots on the various networks?
How much traveling do you do? The more you travel, the more important the overall service coverage area is. Also, 3G, while it speeds things up quite a bit, it may not really matter to you as long as you have data service that works.
Do you want to TRUST your cell phone service provider? Verizon is probably the company I would trust the least when it comes to a bill(land line or cell phone). Will there be a random $10 that they will take off if you complain, meaning you MUST check your bill in detail each month for "strange" fees? This is what I hate about Verizon, they have a long track record of just throwing random fees at customers, knowing that a very low percentage will be checking their bill and catch it. How about the sudden bump in early termination fees that Verizon just put out there that doesn't specify which phone you have? So, a cheap $50 phone could hold the same early termination fee as a $400 Blackberry(unless the new fees specify based on phone what the termination fee will be).
Now, with those questions in mind, AT&T for overall areas of service may be just a little smaller than Verizon. In general, for overall quality of service, Verizon is probably the best. Keep in mind that the AT&T commercials are correct, the data service will generally not work while talking on the phone. With a speaker phone, this IS a key weakness for Verizon. At the same time, Verizon service does tend to be a bit better in many or possibly most areas. Considering they are also the local phone company for many on the east coast of the USA, this makes some sense since they have local crews everywhere for servicing the normal land lines. Third is Sprint, and their coverage area as a whole is a lot worse. They are good in many places, but in rural areas, it is hit or miss how good or bad the service will be. T-mobile is also short on coverage area, with many areas not able to get T-mobile service, and I am not just talking about little towns in the mountains, but in areas with over 10,000 people living in it.
If you travel overseas, GSM is pretty dominant, so AT&T and T-mobile phones can easily just have a sim chip put into them to let you use a local carrier while you are there. If you have a locked phone(which most are), regulations in the USA require that the provider provide an unlock code so you can use it while traveling.
When it comes to 3G coverage, Verizon clearly has the better network, but as I mentioned, for most people, 3G is nice but isn't necessary for most things. I use my phone to get traffic updates for my GPS, and others use their phone as a cellular modem(bluetooth connection on their laptop). Just keep in mind that not all phones will let you use them as a way to get data for other devices, and it can also cost more per month from your cell provider(they give you unlimited bandwidth on the phone, but if you use tethering to use that phone as a modem, you have to pay for bandwidth usage).
Blackberry services...they are different from your average smartphone service when it comes to data. As a result, you get some benefits from a Blackberry, but you may run into other headaches with that Blackberry service.
So, consider, but just keep in mind you will probably be stuck in a 2 year contract or subject to an early termination fee.
On a related note, the iPhone for all its functionality and apps and such is very much locked into AT&T(with a Verizon version due in the next few weeks from what I have read). With all the hype, I have not heard enough about comparisons of how it is as a phone compared to other phones on AT&T. The dropped call issues on the iPhone COULD be service related, but it could also jus
Nuts who expect the world to change to cater to THEIR special needs are the ones we need to ban though. Seriously, the world should not revolve around any ONE person or people with "special needs" if they have not earned it via public service.
If you name one product after a character in a book, that generally will not upset people, but when you start naming multiple products after characters or things written by the same author, that DOES become a problem. It isn't about trademarks as much as Google just naming multiple products after someone elses works, and then trying to trademark them.
I think you also missed a key factor, and that is the concept of the GPU being improved. Intel has had the advantage in terms of CPU performance, so Intel is trying to improve their graphics performance now. And, if the new GPU isn't up to the task, THAT is where you CAN focus.
Now, let's be honest, the low end of the market is where integrated graphics really comes into play. So, we are talking about the $400 computer towers you can buy from HP, Gateway, and Dell. And for THOSE, you need the combined CPU+GPU price to be reasonable.
The AMD 790GX with the integrated Radeon 3300 is a few generations back now, but the newer generations for integrated are not really that much faster I don't think. Still, you have to compare the combination of low end CPU with the integrated graphics to see the true value.
Will we see the i5s with the better graphics in those $400 towers, or will they end up being up in the $600 range? For all the improvements, Intel may not be releasing anything that will really change the balance of power in the low end of the market.
As far as power usage, I think many people are a bit too hung up on how much a computer adds to the electric bill. The real line is when you can exchange your space heater for a computer tower due to power usage and heat generation. Or, power draw comes into play when you want to save on battery life in a laptop/netbook. Power also comes into play when you need to vent the heat from a computer. For overall use though, most people REALLY don't care about the power draw, especially when they are buying a faster computer.
So, price for a motherboard+CPU+memory on the AMD side, vs. a COMPARABLE motherboard+CPU+memory on the Intel side. Remember, video performance is a bit more important under Vista and Windows 7 compared to XP if you leave Aero turned on, so the GPU performance DOES impact how good a machine feels to use now. Up to this point, the FEEL of a $400 Intel based tower hasn't felt as good as a $400 AMD based tower overall. That is what you have to look at in the low end.
A major part of the problem is that since real violence can, and in most cases will lead to death, it really is something to be avoided. This is one thing that most games fail at, and that is making it unpleasant to be in the middle of a lot of gunfire and such. This is where game design comes in, making the game, not about running around shooting people, but about trying to stay out of the line of fire while trying to accomplish your objectives.
If you have played the original Thief, it really pushed that idea, where you don't WANT to be seen or caught. Games where there is violence, but as more of a "this is the environment you live in, and it is a challenge staying alive while trying to live your life" type of thing WOULD be popular as long as there is a good story behind it. Games where you have to talk your way out of fights, because a real fight would get you killed would make a lot of sense.
I didn't say they should not be taxed, but that the taxes should be paid by those who have access to the services. For example, someone living in New York should not have to pay for local services provided in California. Also, if I go out of state to make a purchase, should I have to pay a SALES tax in the state I live in? Paying INCOME taxes makes sense for a business, but you have to look at what resources the business will be using.
This is really what it comes down to, fair taxation. The idea that police, fire departments, and emergency services have to be paid for makes sense, and having it paid for by those who have access to these services if they are needed makes sense. So, sales taxes make sense, since even those visiting will WANT those services to be available. So, what about the Internet? If the local Internet Service Providers are paying their taxes in the places they provide service are doing all the maintenance, and the government has not paid for the deployment or maintenance of the lines, then it does not make sense for those out of state to be forced to pay a sales tax.
This goes back to the problem of where tax money comes from and goes. Shouldn't schools be paid for by EVERYONE living in that school district, not just those who own property in that district? If I were to put up a walled community, provide private police, medical, and fire services, and use NOTHING from the outside, then those living in that community really use nothing from the outside, except perhaps roads to bring supplies in and out. People living inside would not feel that they should have to pay for the services of those outside since their entire community would be cared for. On the flip side, federal income taxes, and even state income taxes would make SOME sense to pay since it is expected that the government DOES need tax money to pay the representatives of the people.
Oh, and to answer your unspoken question, Long Island is an expensive place, but teachers in many districts make more in under three quarters of a year worth of work than most people working in that area. Looking at your figure, they make $50,000 for how many weeks of actual work each year? Remember, all those school holidays, and summers off, and government holidays....If I could take my current income and get that many paid days off each year, I'd be a lot happier, that's for sure.
As for government, if they would cut services to pay off the debts so they could in turn lower taxes over time, people wouldn't mind. But running a deficit year after year after year, with no intention of ever getting the debts paid off is also a part of the problem.
And, for an out-of-state company, the taxes would NEVER go to the local community, because the business isn't in that local community. There is the other problem of state governments spending so foolishly that NO ONE would approve. When public school teachers make upwards of $80,000 to teach from September through June, with MANY vacations and days off due to government holidays on top of that, there is a huge problem, and no one seems to be willing to step up and DO anything about it.
Why should government offices and schools be closed for Columbus Day for example? It is one thing to record things in history books, but SERIOUSLY, in times of financial difficulty, why are there so many PAID days off for government employees? The governments need to just re-evaluate the pay they give employees as well, and make sure they are appropriate for the local cost of living and what is being paid in the private sector. If someone in the private sector gets paid $25,000/year to answer a phone, then a government employee doing the same job should be getting paid $25,000/year, not $40,000/year plus better benefits and a pension on top of it. How about caps on pensions where people can NOT collect a pension for longer than 2/3rds of the time they were working(meaning 30 years of service would only provide 20 years of pension)?
Cut the cost(not size) of government, and the need for all this extra tax money would go way way down.
When you think about it, the problem with most of the taxes imposed by states is that the idea is to pay for government provided services. Now, for out of state businesses, shouldn't the ONLY real burden be on the transit systems(roads and rails)? The postal system already charges money for delivering things, so really, it is just about transit systems. Sales taxes, such as they are, are a bit foolish to impose on out of state entities since the equipment that handles the actual exchange of money is generally not in the state demanding that sales taxes are collected. Basically, if a financial transaction takes place outside of a state, I don't feel that state has the right to demand money for the transaction.
Now, a national sales tax would eliminate this issue, or some other system.
The real problem that many states are running into is that they are run like governments, spending money they don't have and will NEVER have to provide services that will never end up with a net profit. Paying employees too much money, giving too much PAID time off(including the dozens of government holidays where other businesses stay open), and really, just spending too much for the tax income they bring in. If a private business were to try operating like that, they would be bankrupt within a year. So, the states are all crying that they are broke while paying assistants to government employees upwards of $80,000 per year.
There are different sets of mental abilities that people of both genders have, and while some people will be very strong in some, they also can end up very weak in others. It is also the perception of the word "intelligent" that can also differ from person to person, or from ethnic group to ethnic group. As a result, you can have people who score very high in certain types of tests, yet if you throw them into an unusual situation, they won't have the slightest idea how to handle it.
The ability to come up with solutions to different problems is the perfect example of this. You can take someone with amazing abilities in mathematics or physics, but they might not be able to come up with a good solution on how to improve the functional efficiency of a business, group, or come up with other solutions outside their area of expertise. In this regard, their high intelligence is limited to a narrow area.
Being able to evaluate problems with systems of doing things may also be an area where people considered to be intelligent might have trouble, but at the same time they can handle very advanced scientific problems quickly and easily. A part of this is that people tend to either focus on specifics, or generalities. While some will really dig deep to find a detailed solution to a problem thrown at them, others will look at the situation from a "big picture" perspective and figure out a USE for what the detail oriented people come up with. Women and men both have the ability to fall into either group, but this idea that intelligence can be easily evaluated without looking at other mental strengths and weaknesses of the individual is what is flawed.
You can also break things down into areas such as memorization ability, the ability and speed to learn a new concept, and the ability to analyze and apply knowledge to various very different situations. If you take some Math majors from MIT and try to throw them into a situation that calls for a solution that does not call for a mathematical solution, would they be able to find the solution? Knowledge and Wisdom.....one is how much a person knows and can recall, and the other is the application of knowledge. One without the other tends to be fairly useless, but without wisdom, knowledge becomes useless. How many people do YOU consider to be idiots because they can't come up with good solutions to problems, even though they have very obvious mental strengths? It also requires a certain type of thinking to see systematic flaws in different areas, and it is unfortunate that many people don't understand this.
And finally, it takes the cooperation of DIFFERENT people with different mental strengths to come up with solutions to many things. The problem is that too many people fail to see their own weaknesses, and where they NEED the help of people with a very different way of approaching problem solving.
One thing to keep in mind is that since we are at the point where textures themselves are high enough quality for things to look very good. So, the focus then becomes motion and in the details. Things like physics, and how objects interact are where a lot of the focus is moving to, as well as things like motion, and in the really TINY details that you may not notice when things are in motion, but are still there(like the fuzz and frayed edges on worn clothes, or sweaters). These sorts of things may not be required, but they do add to things. Water is one of those things that people keep pointing to, but improvements in how REAL things feel in a game or computer rendering are what make NEW games look better than things from previous generations.
A big problem that people need to remember is that just because the highest end cards have a lot of power to handle the newest features does not mean that the low end DX11 cards do. This is why adoption of even DirectX 10 has been low, because developers need to code based on what consumers will have in their computers, and if most people can't use a feature, that reduces how attractive that feature is when it comes to selling the game/application. DX11 may not be limited ONLY to Windows 7 this time around, but it will still be limited to people with a DX11 class GPU in their system. I am still seeing many low-end systems with the Geforce 6150LE in them these days, as well as the crappy Intel graphics, so it is clear that it will take at least six years before DX 9 is finally gone(because I expect to see new machines sold with Geforce 6150LEs for the next two years STILL being sold retail).
The big names in the retail/mail order computer field, HP/Compaq, Dell, and Gateway/eMachines are encouraging a shift to newer generations. If this is because they have too high an inventory, or are just unwilling to transition to newer generations I don't know. It is just annoying that THEY are holding us back. I know on the AMD side that it would be NICE to see more entry level systems with an integrated AMD graphics chipset since these not only perform better, but also support the newer standards.
Many jobs treat the higher end technical positions as being salaried. This means there is no overtime, in the way a manager is just expected to do the job, even if it means working late, and still getting no extra money for it. The trade-off is that you don't have people watching over you and micro-managing you since you are in charge of your area of responsibility. If you are in a "grunt" style position where you are under a manager who stays on top of you, you need to make it clear that:
A) you are responsible for your job getting done, meaning you should be left alone to get the job done, but that it means if things break in the middle of the night, you ARE responsible to get them fixed.
or
B) You are "just an employee", meaning you deserve overtime, and there SHOULD be some sort of compensation for being on-call, either rolled into your normal pay, or overtime pay.
In system administration positions, as a responsible point of contact, the admins normally get paid with on-call time being a part of the pay. It is expected, and falls under A. Note that in that type of position, there are others to share the on-call duty with, so you might only be on call for one week out of four for example, and you only get woken up when the on-call person doesn't respond. Again, it is about being responsible and taking charge, or about just being an employee without any sense of responsibility for the service you help provide.
So, where do you find yourself?
When electricity and the telephone were new, the thought that the world would be focused on improvements and technology would be laughable. Inventors were few and far between, so there was a lot of room for just writing about crazy ideas about what the future may hold for new inventions. Once the personal computer became common(beyond the early adopters), the future, and what sort of inventions might come out has really dropped.
So, wireless communications have gone personal in the form of cell phones. Video calls are almost here(it is here, but not common and not good enough for mainstream). Even things like being able to just hop on a plane and be in Europe in 6-9 hours(from the USA) used to be an element of science fiction. So, where do we go from here? Space and space travel. Instant transport(transporter technology from Star Trek) is there. Flying cars as well, and robotics....all have been done before technology has made them possible.
So, what we really need is a new generation that has been raised on the current technology to look forward and come up with something new. In the same way that those older than 40 already should expect that future "the next big thing" will come from those much younger, due to having grown up with technology being EVERYWHERE, when it comes to writing, the same expectation should be there.
It really just comes from the perspective of the writers needing to really REACH to come up with a new idea, writers tend to go from their own experiences, and then extending from there based on the latest scientific releases. Asimov used the positron to explain how robots worked(their "thinking") for example. But, much of what has been in the works for science is really in the hard-core stage, where a lot of particle physics comes into play. Or you see work going on discovering planets around stars, but really, no really new on a conceptual basis has been hitting the news.
Looking for new planets...old
new energy sources....old
flight...old
space travel....old concept, but aside from how it is implemented, not terribly new.
We are seeing the start of people taking a trip into orbit, but even living on other planets, meeting alien life, and so on has been done enough where it just isn't NEW anymore. Even the future evolution of humanity has been done a bit, though "future humans" tend to be very like the humans of today, just with better technology available to them.
So, what new things that have not been thought of yet will come out? It really may take another 50-100 years before Sci-Fi really wakes back up, just because something really really different needs to be invented that will amaze people. Think about it, short of aliens REALLY showing up here on Earth, is there any scientific invention that would really surprise us anymore?
My own expectation for the next few hundred years is more like Babylon 5 than Star Trek....human society and nature have not had a real push to change, and even the idea of "try to be nice to others" seems to be fading away, where there is more encouragement to be an obnoxious ass than a decent person. So, who knows what the future may hold, but the future of society rather than the technology of the future is where there is more room for writing right now.