How many TVs looks like a big rectangle with a screen? How many remotes are just a bunch of buttons? How many computer screens are a rectangle with a screen and maybe some buttons on a corner? How many mice are little rounded things with a few buttons at the top? Most things LOOK pretty darn similar, particularly after some initial iterations of refinement where eventually everything looks about it optimal as possible. Sorry but eventually you gotta just let go and try to make a better product.
That's one of the main problems for me, everything has so many hitpoints and it goes up every level where damage only scales up at a much slower pace. So eventually everything seems like this block of granite that you have to slowly beat into submission. Throw in all the tactics and manuvering and rules and it just seems like it takes a long time to resolve combat. It doesn't help if you end up with groups where some people have trouble focusing for that long a time so you end up wrangling them back to the table to finish their tasks.
Unless they change a lot and add a lot of content I see no use for me in any of these set top boxes/built in TV interfaces. I have a media center PC and it does everything they do and then also a whole lot more. None of them can just go to NBC.com and pull up last night's show for free. If they did then either they'd need some sort of agreement with the broadcaster which would probably be too expensive or they'd need a fully function web browser which would eliminate their dumbed down interface. I see no reason I should pay someone to give me less than what I could easily get on my own.
I think despite what many say it is actually quite fun the only real issue is that combat takes way way too long. Fun that there is so much to the tactics and such but annoying when two fights take up an entire nights game.
My Father In Law has been getting classes on DVD for a while and loves them. I have watched a few and I think they're just as useful as any lecture I ever had. What they should do is provide the video lectures along with class notes and assignments and meet to ask questions and give details. If the videos are done well (I think a live studio audience with a few plants that ask common questions might be a good idea just to make it feel organic) then it should ultimately cut way down on professor time in large lecture halls and give them more time to have individual or small group interactions.
Plus videos can we watched again! Either for studying or maybe even recapping later on in life.
I would think the purpose here is more to stir interest and get some basic concepts out there than to teach programming. Taking a bunch of kids used to watching pixar movies and playing xbox games and showing them some basic text on a screen after some hours of work will probably not impress them all that much.
This isn't about Verizon wanting to get into the Streaming market, it's about Verizon wanting to kill competition and roll back the clock on online streaming. They want to make it so your choice for video entertainment is once again restricted by which access provider you have. Eventually you'll end up with exactly what we had with cable but for internet access.
As a happy Fios internet customer, a long time Netflix and someone considering becoming a Verizon wireless customer I am very disappointed by the prospect. There is no way Verizon would not star tying in the Netflix service with their own and raising costs and instituting caps. It's worse than that though I think as it would be bad for the entire industry. Netflix was the only streaming service out there with enough weight to start forcing studios to open up to the streaming idea. They were happy to sit on their piles of money and make people go out to the store to pay for DVDs they only watched two or three times. Without Netflix I think the entire streaming industry will take another 5 years to real take off and it will probably end up being the Verizons and Comcasts that have the control of it now. Expect your $10/month streaming service to be $80/month with option $15/month add on for the sports package and $20/month movie package.
I think for examples of bizarro tripe you might want to consider a mirror. I don't think anyone is saying its best for the company to go out of business I just don't think that the argument that "the company I bought from maybe more profit on my purchase than yours" is a rather odd argument to make in favor of said company. That's not a metric on which you would judge any other company at least I have never heard someone use this argument in any other case. Only on TV and in those cases making fun of the people involved have I seen someone brag about how much they over spent on an item. Now suddenly the idea that we are all aware that Apple is charging us more for their phones than anyone else and this is a good thing is out there and I think it's pretty much antithetical to most capitalist theories.
As for Apple being THE premium maker I don't think that holds well either. Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that Android phones are cheap and iPhones are not. But the 3GS is on sale everywhere for 1 cent and there are $200+ Android phones that sell out on release. So it seems that there is more to it than simple price comparison.
I think there is something still out there to want about specs. Because with these new processors we're getting closer and closer to laptop and desktop performance. Now we're getting to where you could say do I want to buy a new laptop or get this tablet instead. You look at the graphics in the games and you note that you can now use gamepad controls and hook it up to a tv and use it like a console and suddenly this device is even more worth it's cost as it has a greater range of uses.
I personally just don't understand the user experience that is so nice about iOS. I have two iOS devices in my household (a iPod touch and my wife's iPhone) and they don't seem in any way better than my Android phone. They actually seem more tired and less interesting to me. There's nothing that is easier to me about using them (in fact some things seem harder to me as they tend to have a deeper/more confusing menu system for system settings). The main screen is just a bunch of icons/folders all sorted into a grid and a static background. I just don't see where this amazing user experience is that people talk about and I've used them a fair bit (the touch is mine and I played with it for a few months when I got it for Xmas last year till I got my Galaxy and I haven't looked back).
Totally agree, that is exactly how I felt about phones and how I felt when my company started pushing IM as the way to communicate. I started having to set myself to invisible and block people on IM because they would pop in whenever it suited them and then wonder loudly why I wasn't dropping everything to instantly reply. These things have their place, no doubt, but I prefer the asymmetric medium of email for most communication...it's just too bad that some don't feel the same way.
I guess maybe I'm old now? But I love the asymmetric nature of the communication, sometime I don't want to talk to you RIGHT NOW but I do need to start or get back to a conversation about something. I also love the ability to store and catalog email threads its useful sometime months later to go back and say on June 12th you me and Bob all agreed to create this page with these features, and here is you saying you liked the idea.
I don't think the vision is like that. You're not renting 50 offices, you're renting space in 50 offices. Lets say you have 100 cubes plus support facilities (bathrooms, kitchens etc) in one big office. Now you have 10 places you're renting 10 cubes each in. You are only paying for the rental cube space plus facility access. Other cubes in those 10 places are rented to other companies. Sure there will be overhead for facilities management but you pay that now unless you own the whole building and then you are paying for upkeep on your own so it still costs you. I think the idea is brilliant honestly.
I like this idea much better, that's real campaign reform and a great way to turn down the river of money currently flowing into politics. There would still need to be more enforcement and more laws. Because people with money would find other ways to influence politics...."oh your daughter needs college tuition well lets see if I can setup a foundation and see if that new foundation needs someone to give a free ride to".
Good ideas on the face but the problem is that still gives people with lots of money far more sway than the average person. The purpose of PACs and Unions is to allow people to group together and have more sway than they would individually and be heard. What you're proposing essentially still leaves the average citizen without any power and just makes the high income earners tremendously more powerful.
The problem is I only really get two choices. Neither choice is particularly good on real Government restriction of power and intrusion. I can vote third party but the majority do not. The group right now calling for weaker government are really only talking about weaker in certain ways and have no problem with the government enforcing other laws they decide are acceptable. So I'm screwed most elections.
What about multi-national corporations? The money they make isn't all going to be taxed, at least not by the US. But they might be using US assets for their operations.
Yeah just like those waste of money government R&D funds that went into semi-conductor research, radio communications, nuclear power, etc. Bell Labs and other such historical research enterprises got government grants for research but that's just BS and we don't need to do anything like that because the government is stupid and that's all that matters to me or anyone smart enough to list to talking heads.
I wonder if it ever occurred to the well meaning busy-bodies in the government that the professionals in their respective industries might just know a little bit more than they do?
Actually they talk to a lot of professionals in the industry before making such decisions. It's not some magic number they research find out things like what cost level would be needed before the industry would be viable, what cost numbers are achievable, and how long the industry professionals think it would take to achieve these goals. I know its en vogue to assume government is some sort of nameless entity full of stupid but in reality there are actually lots of well educated hard working people there trying their best. Sometimes they get it wrong but sometimes they don't too. Just like enterprise.
Say that when the future version of Blackwater is stomping all over the people after the government is stripped down to nothing and the Corps have everything.
Slashdot Mirror
How many TVs looks like a big rectangle with a screen? How many remotes are just a bunch of buttons? How many computer screens are a rectangle with a screen and maybe some buttons on a corner? How many mice are little rounded things with a few buttons at the top? Most things LOOK pretty darn similar, particularly after some initial iterations of refinement where eventually everything looks about it optimal as possible. Sorry but eventually you gotta just let go and try to make a better product.
That's one of the main problems for me, everything has so many hitpoints and it goes up every level where damage only scales up at a much slower pace. So eventually everything seems like this block of granite that you have to slowly beat into submission. Throw in all the tactics and manuvering and rules and it just seems like it takes a long time to resolve combat. It doesn't help if you end up with groups where some people have trouble focusing for that long a time so you end up wrangling them back to the table to finish their tasks.
Unless they change a lot and add a lot of content I see no use for me in any of these set top boxes/built in TV interfaces. I have a media center PC and it does everything they do and then also a whole lot more. None of them can just go to NBC.com and pull up last night's show for free. If they did then either they'd need some sort of agreement with the broadcaster which would probably be too expensive or they'd need a fully function web browser which would eliminate their dumbed down interface. I see no reason I should pay someone to give me less than what I could easily get on my own.
I think despite what many say it is actually quite fun the only real issue is that combat takes way way too long. Fun that there is so much to the tactics and such but annoying when two fights take up an entire nights game.
Name a Tech company whose business model isn't that? Planned obsolescence is pretty much one of the main ways tech companies make money now.
My Father In Law has been getting classes on DVD for a while and loves them. I have watched a few and I think they're just as useful as any lecture I ever had. What they should do is provide the video lectures along with class notes and assignments and meet to ask questions and give details. If the videos are done well (I think a live studio audience with a few plants that ask common questions might be a good idea just to make it feel organic) then it should ultimately cut way down on professor time in large lecture halls and give them more time to have individual or small group interactions. Plus videos can we watched again! Either for studying or maybe even recapping later on in life.
I would think the purpose here is more to stir interest and get some basic concepts out there than to teach programming. Taking a bunch of kids used to watching pixar movies and playing xbox games and showing them some basic text on a screen after some hours of work will probably not impress them all that much.
This isn't about Verizon wanting to get into the Streaming market, it's about Verizon wanting to kill competition and roll back the clock on online streaming. They want to make it so your choice for video entertainment is once again restricted by which access provider you have. Eventually you'll end up with exactly what we had with cable but for internet access.
As a happy Fios internet customer, a long time Netflix and someone considering becoming a Verizon wireless customer I am very disappointed by the prospect. There is no way Verizon would not star tying in the Netflix service with their own and raising costs and instituting caps. It's worse than that though I think as it would be bad for the entire industry. Netflix was the only streaming service out there with enough weight to start forcing studios to open up to the streaming idea. They were happy to sit on their piles of money and make people go out to the store to pay for DVDs they only watched two or three times. Without Netflix I think the entire streaming industry will take another 5 years to real take off and it will probably end up being the Verizons and Comcasts that have the control of it now. Expect your $10/month streaming service to be $80/month with option $15/month add on for the sports package and $20/month movie package.
I think for examples of bizarro tripe you might want to consider a mirror. I don't think anyone is saying its best for the company to go out of business I just don't think that the argument that "the company I bought from maybe more profit on my purchase than yours" is a rather odd argument to make in favor of said company. That's not a metric on which you would judge any other company at least I have never heard someone use this argument in any other case. Only on TV and in those cases making fun of the people involved have I seen someone brag about how much they over spent on an item. Now suddenly the idea that we are all aware that Apple is charging us more for their phones than anyone else and this is a good thing is out there and I think it's pretty much antithetical to most capitalist theories. As for Apple being THE premium maker I don't think that holds well either. Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that Android phones are cheap and iPhones are not. But the 3GS is on sale everywhere for 1 cent and there are $200+ Android phones that sell out on release. So it seems that there is more to it than simple price comparison.
I think there is something still out there to want about specs. Because with these new processors we're getting closer and closer to laptop and desktop performance. Now we're getting to where you could say do I want to buy a new laptop or get this tablet instead. You look at the graphics in the games and you note that you can now use gamepad controls and hook it up to a tv and use it like a console and suddenly this device is even more worth it's cost as it has a greater range of uses.
I personally just don't understand the user experience that is so nice about iOS. I have two iOS devices in my household (a iPod touch and my wife's iPhone) and they don't seem in any way better than my Android phone. They actually seem more tired and less interesting to me. There's nothing that is easier to me about using them (in fact some things seem harder to me as they tend to have a deeper/more confusing menu system for system settings). The main screen is just a bunch of icons/folders all sorted into a grid and a static background. I just don't see where this amazing user experience is that people talk about and I've used them a fair bit (the touch is mine and I played with it for a few months when I got it for Xmas last year till I got my Galaxy and I haven't looked back).
Totally agree, that is exactly how I felt about phones and how I felt when my company started pushing IM as the way to communicate. I started having to set myself to invisible and block people on IM because they would pop in whenever it suited them and then wonder loudly why I wasn't dropping everything to instantly reply. These things have their place, no doubt, but I prefer the asymmetric medium of email for most communication...it's just too bad that some don't feel the same way.
The phone realized via it's GPS and flight tracker where it was headed and offed itself.
I guess maybe I'm old now? But I love the asymmetric nature of the communication, sometime I don't want to talk to you RIGHT NOW but I do need to start or get back to a conversation about something. I also love the ability to store and catalog email threads its useful sometime months later to go back and say on June 12th you me and Bob all agreed to create this page with these features, and here is you saying you liked the idea.
I don't think the vision is like that. You're not renting 50 offices, you're renting space in 50 offices. Lets say you have 100 cubes plus support facilities (bathrooms, kitchens etc) in one big office. Now you have 10 places you're renting 10 cubes each in. You are only paying for the rental cube space plus facility access. Other cubes in those 10 places are rented to other companies. Sure there will be overhead for facilities management but you pay that now unless you own the whole building and then you are paying for upkeep on your own so it still costs you. I think the idea is brilliant honestly.
I like this idea much better, that's real campaign reform and a great way to turn down the river of money currently flowing into politics. There would still need to be more enforcement and more laws. Because people with money would find other ways to influence politics...."oh your daughter needs college tuition well lets see if I can setup a foundation and see if that new foundation needs someone to give a free ride to".
Good ideas on the face but the problem is that still gives people with lots of money far more sway than the average person. The purpose of PACs and Unions is to allow people to group together and have more sway than they would individually and be heard. What you're proposing essentially still leaves the average citizen without any power and just makes the high income earners tremendously more powerful.
The problem is I only really get two choices. Neither choice is particularly good on real Government restriction of power and intrusion. I can vote third party but the majority do not. The group right now calling for weaker government are really only talking about weaker in certain ways and have no problem with the government enforcing other laws they decide are acceptable. So I'm screwed most elections.
What about multi-national corporations? The money they make isn't all going to be taxed, at least not by the US. But they might be using US assets for their operations.
Call me when they detect nuclear fusion.
Can we wait until after the coming economic disaster and then zombie apocalypse is done for this natural disaster?
Yeah just like those waste of money government R&D funds that went into semi-conductor research, radio communications, nuclear power, etc. Bell Labs and other such historical research enterprises got government grants for research but that's just BS and we don't need to do anything like that because the government is stupid and that's all that matters to me or anyone smart enough to list to talking heads.
I wonder if it ever occurred to the well meaning busy-bodies in the government that the professionals in their respective industries might just know a little bit more than they do?
Actually they talk to a lot of professionals in the industry before making such decisions. It's not some magic number they research find out things like what cost level would be needed before the industry would be viable, what cost numbers are achievable, and how long the industry professionals think it would take to achieve these goals. I know its en vogue to assume government is some sort of nameless entity full of stupid but in reality there are actually lots of well educated hard working people there trying their best. Sometimes they get it wrong but sometimes they don't too. Just like enterprise.
Say that when the future version of Blackwater is stomping all over the people after the government is stripped down to nothing and the Corps have everything.