What a nice trip down memory lane. Sitting at home with a Apple//e, a 300 baud Hayes modem (It was important to remind people that it was a genuine Hayes), and a big gulp from 7-11 autodialing a half dozen BBSs trying to get in.
In certian respects, the golden age of BBSs was better then today's Internet. For example, no logging on at 3.30 in the morning only to find 20+ posts by clueless Europeans bitching about how some website didn't include them.
Getting rid of physical media takes away one of the greatest advantages of actually paying for music (I mean, other then doing the right thing).
People want a physical disc. Personally, I used to buy CDs all the time, despite the fact that I often downloaded music online, because I wanted something I could hold on to, take in the car, leave on my shelf, etc. I don't buy them any more because I just can't support that industry, and have plenty of CDs to keep my busy.
If the RIAA wants to get CD sales back up, their best bet would be to stop treating all of their potential customers like criminals.
Let me get this streight. They are selling a CD with a CD player included? I mean, a whole, fully functioning CD player?
Has the world gone insane? This has to be the most assinine thing I've heard of. And this is done to prevent piracy?
Now, I'm going to guess that even if they get huge discounts and have figured out how to really make them cheap, a CD player and headphones has to cost them around $7 to make, and my first guess is that cost will be passed on to the consumer.
So the consumer will have to pay extra money for a CD that can only be played on a cheap discman and listened to with cheap headphones... no listining on a computer, through a home stereo, or in the car.
And this is all being done to prevent piracy, which can be gotten around with a hammer or a screwdriver.
Seriously, what are these people smoking? It appears they are going out of their way to make it tougher on the consumer. I'm trying to find a single shred of logic here, and the best thing I can come up with is that they really want CD sales to go down further to encourage lawmakers to get tougher on online pirates.
I'm not a scientist, but as far as I know, it's not really that difficult to make fresh water from 'dirty' water through simple desalinization. Granted, the process now is cumbersum and time consuming, but with the proper technology, I doubt it would be more difficult or use anymore resources then what a current oil refinery uses to give us gas. Just a thought.
I love this idea. The design concept, the adaptability, the price, the envrionmental impact. Everything about it is great.
But it'll be a long time before these take over internal combustion engines, and it's not because we can't make the technology work or get the public to buy them.
Put simply, oil. Billions of dollars in investments, oil tankers, refineries, oil rigs... Thousands upon thousands of gas stations. Hundreds of thousands of jobs... all gone.
It would kill the Western world's economy if done too quickly, and the larger companies with a keen interest in oil are going to make dang sure it doesn't happen too quickly, if at all.
In the end, the only two winners would be the envrionmentalists (we all would win), and the peace loving people of the Western world who would love to see the Middle East region reduced to nothing but a third world desert (if nobody buys oil, how could they afford those fancy weapons). Neither of the two have any foothold in the policy makers domain.
There has to be some careful decisions made if these are going to be rolled out. Lets hope for the best.
In the meantime, be a patriot; Walk.
Re:Everybody who wants a DVD player now has one...
on
Expect DVD Chip Price Wars
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
This letter is not junk mail! You have received this because you have chosen to opt-in to receive special apologizes from this company.
We sincerly apologize for sending you unsolicited e-mails informing you of exciting offers for new companies.
By receiving this apology letter, you have been selected by our database to receive an unlimited amount of incredible offers by direct mail from super-value-offers direct.
To discontinue receiving these apology letters, please point your browser to 192.168.0.4/unsubscribe
The FCC specifically allows commercial use of this unregulated spectrum. Your argument is like saying that if I put up $10,000 worth of solar panels to convert the "free unregulated" sunlight into electricity, I shouldn't be allowed to sell that electricity.
True, and I personally am not bothered if somebody wants to make money off this. But what I do have a problem with is how often a company acts in difference to the public. This is a great example.
To go back to your anology, it would be as if I spent $1,000 on a solar panel and used it to provide free eletricity, then a for profit utility spent $10,000 on panels that blocked out part of the suns coverage. I could go down to radio shack and for $100 buy an add on that would boost my power to equal the big companys, but somehow that's wrong?
Re:If it's not free it must be.... EVIL MUHAHAHAHA
on
War Car Offers Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 2
I don't think that's the problem. There are pleanty of wireless spectrums that are heavily regulated which companies can and do charge for services on.
Wi-fi is an largly unregulated spectrum. It's one of the few ones the common man has. And so it's pretty dang hard to swallow companies making a buck off something like this, espically when they seem to act with indifference to the free use of an open spectrum. Remember this?
If somebody wants to give away his or her bandwith (as long as it's in accordance with his providers TOS) on a public spectrum, why is he somehow worse then a company doing that?
This is the sort of thing that makes it hard for legitimate for-profit WISPs (who use legal equipment) to compete with these hobbyists networks. The gear that WISPs have to pay $1000 for, the hobbyists cobble together for $200.
Had it ever occured to you that for profit WISPs shouldn't be trying to make a buck on top of a free, unregulated public spectrum? Companies already have access to a large chunk of the different radio spectrum that the common person can't touch.
When you start limiting modifications a person can do because it interfers with business running on the same public spectrum, you start down a slippery slope; Eventually we end up with some wisp setting up a tower at the shop accross the street, and I learn my $150 WAP I bought and put an antennea on is suddenly illegal.
My wireless card can't pick it up in our lounge (20 feet away), but for some odd reason I could get it across campus (half mile, and no LOS that I could see) - anyone know what the hell is going on there?
Chances are your dorm is built with the standard Masonry block with steel reinforcement construction, which plays havoc with the 802.11b. There could also be plumbing (a killer) in the walls or poorly placed wireing. Which just kills the signal.
On the other hand, the signal seems to work OK with little loss out of windows, which could explain the distance outside (assuming there are no obstructions).
It reminds me of the olden days when universities would often only have a small bank of modems (again, unadvertised) for dialup into shell machines.
At one school (I wasn't a student), there were 4 modems for 30,000 students. As word of mouth caught on, it went from always available and an open telnet prompt to constant busy signals. (knowing the other people who used it, we got into the habit of calling their home numbers so the call waiting would bump them offline). Eventually the open telnet prompt was gone (would only go into the universitys student Vax machine or library).
It took them years to upgrade, and when they finally did everything was PPP. I have a feeling these days someone like UCBerkeley will be a little more responsive to demand.
In reality, we don't really need electronic voting. The system as it stands now (manual counting of votes) works just fine.
The problem is in who we allow to vote. The problems in Florida stemmed from an inability by some of the electorat to be able to properly read instructions.
From that, we can assume that either A: These people are very stupid, or B: These people are unwilling to take the time to make sure they are casting a proper ballot (double check your votes, ask an election offical if you need help, and so on.)
In either event, these people should not be extended the privlidge of taking part in our democratic process. I'm not saying that we should limit who gets to vote on intellegence, but I do say that somebody must have a basic level of compantancy.
If, on the other hand, we are going to make concessions for those unwilling to learn basic skills (like punch a hole NEXT to the arrow for the canidate you want), then we need to make concessions for everybody. I missed this last election because I was called out of town at the last minute for business. I had Internet access, and would have loved to vote online.
But somehow it's perfectly fair to jump through hoops to accomidate some retired person with pleanty of time and very little personal responsibility, but it's 'unfair' (as has been stated in some objections to online voting) to accomodate busy young people with jobs.
Using crude artwork to express a political concern or viewpoint has been going on for hundreds of years. They were originally called 'editorial cartoons'. While today's updated version adds sounds and interactivity, the purpose and message are the same.
What we have here is an author that seems to have graduated from the John Katz school of technology journalism; Lets make a big deal about some 'gee wiz' new technology that translates something that's been done for ages into the digital world, but lets forget to mention it's been done for ages.
The revolutionary aspect of politically motivated video games is really a non-issue. The revolutionary aspect is in that anyone who does it can get it distributed easily. The author sort of missed the point on this too. From the article:
This material would have been unheard of a few years back, when only corporations could afford to code video games
Not so. I was coding video games back in the 80s on my old Apple//e. They were crude, and in retrospect, not very fun, but I was hardly a big corporation, but they were, indeed, games. The difference is, when I finished the only method of distribution I had was swapping floppy disks the next day on the playground with a handful of my nerdy friends.
A crudely produced political video game is just as easily to make by the common man as a crudely drawn etching of a political cartoon was to produce 150 years ago. The types of messages aren't different, but today the common man can get his or her work viewed by thousands, if not millions of people with little or no cost.
And here is where the author misses the boat! It doesn't matter if they are political video games, self published manifestos, communities based on a common interest... These are all nothing new. What's new is the way these publications can be created and distributed by the common man with no corporation behind him or her.
It would be as if somebody wrote an article about websites like Slashdot and said 'Gee wiz! Look, today people can now make critical comments or discuss magazine articles', forgetting to mention that nearly every magazine prior to the Internet had a page for feedback and reader mail, and that the articles were discussed around the dinner table. The only real difference is now I can write this in 5 minutes, post it, and it will be scanned over by thousands, perhaps even read by 50 or 60 people. Now THAT'S the revolution I like and wish were looked at by writers more thoughtful and critical then myself.
Sam and Max was a great game. I'm looking foward to the sequel. Sam and Max, in fact, was a great game, orgininal, funny, and just overall fun to play.
And it wasn't a sequel to anything.
Which makes me wonder; Are there any new games that are orgininal, funny, unique, that are worth playing? To read sites like Slashdot (or others), one would assume not, that the only games of note being realased are either
a: A sequel to a popular game b: A new game based on a popular graphics engine c: A new game being released on linux.
Don't get me wrong, it's always nice to hear about a release based on the above three things. But what about a new game that nobody's heard of before that's really, really good?
Do they not exist, or are most popular websites either uninformed of them or decide not to publish them. As it stands, the only ways you can find out of there is a good new game that you've never heard of is to:
a: Be impressed at the software store by the shiney box, plunk down $50 for something that may end up sucking b: Read the game review websites and magizines, which seem to be staffed by, and cater too 12 year old boys c: Hopefully hear from a freind through word of mouth about a game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking slashdot. It's not really in their scope (or in my expectation) that they tell me about the next new, hot thing in gaming. But does anyone out there know of a place to find this out? I mean, a place smart enough to distinguish the next Sam and Max from the crap?
New buildings constructed with each level left open in a large, empty space (as many office structures are).
As market forces change with demand and pricing changes, the landlord simply changes the number and size of the units.
A housing shortage happens? I'm sorry Mr. Tennent, but we're going to be knocking 100 sq.ft. off your apartment to make room for an additional unit on your floor.
There is a surplus? Mr. Tennent, We don't wish to lower your rent, but to keep you here, we will offer you an additional 100 sq.ft. of living space for the same space.
(Though somehow I suspect the former will happen more often the the latter).
Don't forget the Thunderbird, which is already out.
If electronic companies follow suit, I guess this means that in 2020, Sony will issue a press release saying something to the effect of
'In answer to overwhelming demand from aging Gen Xers, Sony is pleased to announce the New Beta. The technology will be compleatly new and brought up to speed with todays ultra-high-definition digital displays, but will still have the old fashioned mid-80s charm of the orgininal Beta.'
People will flock to electronic stores, only to find that other then the flat black frount, the giant 'BETA' badge, and the retro-inspired dotted 'It's a Sony!' sticker, the New Beta is nothing like the old beta.
Re:Musical innovation is across the pond in Europe
on
Napster Not To Blame
·
· Score: 2
Linkin Park. Godsmack. Incubus. Coldplay. System of a Down. These are all bands who have become big in the last few years, and have had multiple hit songs.
And they all sound the same, with a mild execption for Pearl Jam for actually bringing some artistry to that sound. And again, with the possible execption for Pearl Jam, will all be forgotten in 10 years. I'm not saying they all suck, I'm just saying there is nothing about them that would make people want to return to them.
So because *you* can only think of one Real Big Band, there weren't any others? Are you kidding me? Green Day. The Offspring. Foo Fighters. Pearl Jam. Blink-182. Bush. No Doubt. Dave Matthews Band. Oasis. Goo Goo Dolls. 311. Everclear.
You're kidding me, right? Notice how Greenday mellowed out it's punk rock roots to get airplay? Notice how the Foo Fighters were never able to live up to the're former abilities? Notice how the Offspring ushered in a new generation of metal-rap (a band rivled only by AC/DC for having every single song follow the exact same format). I mean seriously, don't you have a little voice in side your head that says 'hey wait a minute, this is all carefully crafted pop music and I'm being suckered'? Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of that carefully crafted pop music that I like too, but I'm sure as hell not going to buy it, and the best the 90s have to offer in rock will sit right next to 'the Humpty Dance' as 'yeah, that was kinda neat'. Oasis is a funny addition to your list. It got very little airplay here in America, only after acheiving incredible success overseas, and only the toned down songs that passed the homoginzed muster.
Alternative is the name of that genre of music. It existed in the 80s, too, only you apparently are unaware of that fact. When alternative suddenly became a big deal (due to Nirvana's influence), what did you expect them to do? Change its name? That would just have confused people.
Alternative was an industry term for the genre. There were several; post modern, new rock, college rock, etc. The industry chose 'Alternitive', and shortly afterwords managed to alienate all of the genres root fanbase. The only thing that confused people was how quickly it started to suck.
Well, I haven't listened to stations in that many cities. Apparently you've been to all the major markets across the USA, so I'll take your word for it.
I have been to most of them, but if that doesn't do it for you, take a look at the format play lists of the larger multi-market stations, and you'll notice they are pretty much the same.
That's funny, I recall hearing quite a bit of very good music on the radio in the 90s. And buying numerous albums in response to hearing that music on the radio. *GASP* Maybe we like different kinds of music! And maybe it's okay if other people like music you think is crap, and vice-versa!
I remember hearing some not so bad music either. Again, I'm not saying it all sucks, I'm just saying that it's not nearly as good as what the 'industry' put out in previous decades, and what the independant music scene was able to eek out in the 90s.
Re:Musical innovation is across the pond in Europe
on
Napster Not To Blame
·
· Score: 2
What, do you seriously think there were no nameless one-hit-wonder artists in the 1980s? Or the 1970s? Or EVERY DECADE EVER?
Every decade has it's one hit wonders that are quickly forgotten. The problem is now, all the artists are one hit wonders.
In the 80s, bad meant good. In the 90s, alternative meant mainstream. Those wacky record types.
I can think, off the top of my head, of dozens of artists from the 50s-80s that I still listen to and enjoy. Artists that were big in their time and the quality of their music has allowed them to survive in the record store bins to this day.
Not true for the 90s. The only big named band that really took off in the 90s that I can think of is Nirvana, which ironically fueled the final nail into the corpritizing of the record industry (for the record, I did not, nor do not like their music, but apparently enough people do to keep them alive in the minds of hearts of countless fans).
In the Early 90s Nirvana hit the airwaves, and seemingly over-night the rock stations switched from an unnerving blend of techno-pop and glam metal to 'alternative', a term that makes me laugh. Since when is an industry reacting to market trends 'alternative'? Especially when every radio station that plays newly released rock calls themselves 'alternative'?
Now, of course, the alternative stations sound the same coast to coast. As far as I can tell, in the rock genre, the only thing the format is an alternative to is the 80s rock music station, the 60s-70s 'classic' rock stations, and the 50s-60s 'oldies' station.
This isn't to say that the 90s didn't put out quite a bit of good music, but none of it was found in the traditional 'hear a song on the radio, like it, buy an album'.
Slashdot Mirror
What a nice trip down memory lane. Sitting at home with a Apple //e, a 300 baud Hayes modem (It was important to remind people that it was a genuine Hayes), and a big gulp from 7-11 autodialing a half dozen BBSs trying to get in.
In certian respects, the golden age of BBSs was better then today's Internet. For example, no logging on at 3.30 in the morning only to find 20+ posts by clueless Europeans bitching about how some website didn't include them.
It amazes me too. I think a lot of it has to do with our current academic world's inability to accept change in commenly held 'truths'.
That's not to say that Einstien was wrong, but stepping away from taking Einstien as gospal from time to time couldn't hurt.
I guess I jumped the gun their.
heh.
Getting rid of physical media takes away one of the greatest advantages of actually paying for music (I mean, other then doing the right thing).
People want a physical disc. Personally, I used to buy CDs all the time, despite the fact that I often downloaded music online, because I wanted something I could hold on to, take in the car, leave on my shelf, etc. I don't buy them any more because I just can't support that industry, and have plenty of CDs to keep my busy.
If the RIAA wants to get CD sales back up, their best bet would be to stop treating all of their potential customers like criminals.
Let me get this streight. They are selling a CD with a CD player included? I mean, a whole, fully functioning CD player?
Has the world gone insane? This has to be the most assinine thing I've heard of. And this is done to prevent piracy?
Now, I'm going to guess that even if they get huge discounts and have figured out how to really make them cheap, a CD player and headphones has to cost them around $7 to make, and my first guess is that cost will be passed on to the consumer.
So the consumer will have to pay extra money for a CD that can only be played on a cheap discman and listened to with cheap headphones... no listining on a computer, through a home stereo, or in the car.
And this is all being done to prevent piracy, which can be gotten around with a hammer or a screwdriver.
Seriously, what are these people smoking? It appears they are going out of their way to make it tougher on the consumer. I'm trying to find a single shred of logic here, and the best thing I can come up with is that they really want CD sales to go down further to encourage lawmakers to get tougher on online pirates.
I'm not a scientist, but as far as I know, it's not really that difficult to make fresh water from 'dirty' water through simple desalinization. Granted, the process now is cumbersum and time consuming, but with the proper technology, I doubt it would be more difficult or use anymore resources then what a current oil refinery uses to give us gas. Just a thought.
I love this idea. The design concept, the adaptability, the price, the envrionmental impact. Everything about it is great.
... Thousands upon thousands of gas stations. Hundreds of thousands of jobs... all gone.
But it'll be a long time before these take over internal combustion engines, and it's not because we can't make the technology work or get the public to buy them.
Put simply, oil. Billions of dollars in investments, oil tankers, refineries, oil rigs
It would kill the Western world's economy if done too quickly, and the larger companies with a keen interest in oil are going to make dang sure it doesn't happen too quickly, if at all.
In the end, the only two winners would be the envrionmentalists (we all would win), and the peace loving people of the Western world who would love to see the Middle East region reduced to nothing but a third world desert (if nobody buys oil, how could they afford those fancy weapons). Neither of the two have any foothold in the policy makers domain.
There has to be some careful decisions made if these are going to be rolled out. Lets hope for the best.
In the meantime, be a patriot; Walk.
You're an idiot
You're a fucktard
You're an idiot
You're a fucktard
You're an idiot
You're a fucktard
You're an idiot
You're a fucktard
You're an idiot
You're a fucktard
Wow. Finally a valid reason.
Wow, you're still a fucktard
Deep Impact appealed to you? You're an idiot.
You're a raging faggot fucktard
You're an idiot
You're still a fucktard
To sum up, you're an idiot
And to sum up, you're a fucktard
How about 5 million hand-written apology letters?
Hello Mr. Donkey.
This letter is not junk mail! You have received this because you have chosen to opt-in to receive special apologizes from this company.
We sincerly apologize for sending you unsolicited e-mails informing you of exciting offers for new companies.
By receiving this apology letter, you have been selected by our database to receive an unlimited amount of incredible offers by direct mail from super-value-offers direct.
To discontinue receiving these apology letters, please point your browser to 192.168.0.4/unsubscribe
The FCC specifically allows commercial use of this unregulated spectrum. Your argument is like saying that if I put up $10,000 worth of solar panels to convert the "free unregulated" sunlight into electricity, I shouldn't be allowed to sell that electricity.
True, and I personally am not bothered if somebody wants to make money off this. But what I do have a problem with is how often a company acts in difference to the public. This is a great example.
To go back to your anology, it would be as if I spent $1,000 on a solar panel and used it to provide free eletricity, then a for profit utility spent $10,000 on panels that blocked out part of the suns coverage. I could go down to radio shack and for $100 buy an add on that would boost my power to equal the big companys, but somehow that's wrong?
I don't think that's the problem. There are pleanty of wireless spectrums that are heavily regulated which companies can and do charge for services on.
Wi-fi is an largly unregulated spectrum. It's one of the few ones the common man has. And so it's pretty dang hard to swallow companies making a buck off something like this, espically when they seem to act with indifference to the free use of an open spectrum. Remember this?
If somebody wants to give away his or her bandwith (as long as it's in accordance with his providers TOS) on a public spectrum, why is he somehow worse then a company doing that?
This is the sort of thing that makes it hard for legitimate for-profit WISPs (who use legal equipment) to compete with these hobbyists networks. The gear that WISPs have to pay $1000 for, the hobbyists cobble together for $200.
Had it ever occured to you that for profit WISPs shouldn't be trying to make a buck on top of a free, unregulated public spectrum? Companies already have access to a large chunk of the different radio spectrum that the common person can't touch.
When you start limiting modifications a person can do because it interfers with business running on the same public spectrum, you start down a slippery slope; Eventually we end up with some wisp setting up a tower at the shop accross the street, and I learn my $150 WAP I bought and put an antennea on is suddenly illegal.
My wireless card can't pick it up in our lounge (20 feet away), but for some odd reason I could get it across campus (half mile, and no LOS that I could see) - anyone know what the hell is going on there?
Chances are your dorm is built with the standard Masonry block with steel reinforcement construction, which plays havoc with the 802.11b. There could also be plumbing (a killer) in the walls or poorly placed wireing. Which just kills the signal.
On the other hand, the signal seems to work OK with little loss out of windows, which could explain the distance outside (assuming there are no obstructions).
It reminds me of the olden days when universities would often only have a small bank of modems (again, unadvertised) for dialup into shell machines.
At one school (I wasn't a student), there were 4 modems for 30,000 students. As word of mouth caught on, it went from always available and an open telnet prompt to constant busy signals. (knowing the other people who used it, we got into the habit of calling their home numbers so the call waiting would bump them offline). Eventually the open telnet prompt was gone (would only go into the universitys student Vax machine or library).
It took them years to upgrade, and when they finally did everything was PPP. I have a feeling these days someone like UCBerkeley will be a little more responsive to demand.
Smily is a vulger term, right up there with people who say 'lol' and 'rotfifjuadbiacm' or whatever the heck that means.
In reality, we don't really need electronic voting. The system as it stands now (manual counting of votes) works just fine.
The problem is in who we allow to vote. The problems in Florida stemmed from an inability by some of the electorat to be able to properly read instructions.
From that, we can assume that either A: These people are very stupid, or B: These people are unwilling to take the time to make sure they are casting a proper ballot (double check your votes, ask an election offical if you need help, and so on.)
In either event, these people should not be extended the privlidge of taking part in our democratic process. I'm not saying that we should limit who gets to vote on intellegence, but I do say that somebody must have a basic level of compantancy.
If, on the other hand, we are going to make concessions for those unwilling to learn basic skills (like punch a hole NEXT to the arrow for the canidate you want), then we need to make concessions for everybody. I missed this last election because I was called out of town at the last minute for business. I had Internet access, and would have loved to vote online.
But somehow it's perfectly fair to jump through hoops to accomidate some retired person with pleanty of time and very little personal responsibility, but it's 'unfair' (as has been stated in some objections to online voting) to accomodate busy young people with jobs.
On their little diagram showing photos of individual components, that the TV in the 'living room' appears to be displaying an MS blue screen?
That gave me a chuckle.
er, uh, above average intellegence?
no?
How about smarter then a monkey?
I see.
It starts to shake in fear if you ask about Vader, eh?
So what happens, in passing, when you say 'hey R2, what do you think of Ralph Nader?'
Oh the fun.
Using crude artwork to express a political concern or viewpoint has been going on for hundreds of years. They were originally called 'editorial cartoons'. While today's updated version adds sounds and interactivity, the purpose and message are the same.
//e. They were crude, and in retrospect, not very fun, but I was hardly a big corporation, but they were, indeed, games. The difference is, when I finished the only method of distribution I had was swapping floppy disks the next day on the playground with a handful of my nerdy friends.
What we have here is an author that seems to have graduated from the John Katz school of technology journalism; Lets make a big deal about some 'gee wiz' new technology that translates something that's been done for ages into the digital world, but lets forget to mention it's been done for ages.
The revolutionary aspect of politically motivated video games is really a non-issue. The revolutionary aspect is in that anyone who does it can get it distributed easily. The author sort of missed the point on this too. From the article:
This material would have been unheard of a few years back, when only corporations could afford to code video games
Not so. I was coding video games back in the 80s on my old Apple
A crudely produced political video game is just as easily to make by the common man as a crudely drawn etching of a political cartoon was to produce 150 years ago. The types of messages aren't different, but today the common man can get his or her work viewed by thousands, if not millions of people with little or no cost.
And here is where the author misses the boat! It doesn't matter if they are political video games, self published manifestos, communities based on a common interest... These are all nothing new. What's new is the way these publications can be created and distributed by the common man with no corporation behind him or her.
It would be as if somebody wrote an article about websites like Slashdot and said 'Gee wiz! Look, today people can now make critical comments or discuss magazine articles', forgetting to mention that nearly every magazine prior to the Internet had a page for feedback and reader mail, and that the articles were discussed around the dinner table. The only real difference is now I can write this in 5 minutes, post it, and it will be scanned over by thousands, perhaps even read by 50 or 60 people. Now THAT'S the revolution I like and wish were looked at by writers more thoughtful and critical then myself.
Ok, just to rant just a little...
Sam and Max was a great game. I'm looking foward to the sequel. Sam and Max, in fact, was a great game, orgininal, funny, and just overall fun to play.
And it wasn't a sequel to anything.
Which makes me wonder; Are there any new games that are orgininal, funny, unique, that are worth playing? To read sites like Slashdot (or others), one would assume not, that the only games of note being realased are either
a: A sequel to a popular game
b: A new game based on a popular graphics engine
c: A new game being released on linux.
Don't get me wrong, it's always nice to hear about a release based on the above three things. But what about a new game that nobody's heard of before that's really, really good?
Do they not exist, or are most popular websites either uninformed of them or decide not to publish them. As it stands, the only ways you can find out of there is a good new game that you've never heard of is to:
a: Be impressed at the software store by the shiney box, plunk down $50 for something that may end up sucking
b: Read the game review websites and magizines, which seem to be staffed by, and cater too 12 year old boys
c: Hopefully hear from a freind through word of mouth about a game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking slashdot. It's not really in their scope (or in my expectation) that they tell me about the next new, hot thing in gaming. But does anyone out there know of a place to find this out? I mean, a place smart enough to distinguish the next Sam and Max from the crap?
Will be in newly constructed apartment houses.
New buildings constructed with each level left open in a large, empty space (as many office structures are).
As market forces change with demand and pricing changes, the landlord simply changes the number and size of the units.
A housing shortage happens? I'm sorry Mr. Tennent, but we're going to be knocking 100 sq.ft. off your apartment to make room for an additional unit on your floor.
There is a surplus? Mr. Tennent, We don't wish to lower your rent, but to keep you here, we will offer you an additional 100 sq.ft. of living space for the same space.
(Though somehow I suspect the former will happen more often the the latter).
Don't forget the Thunderbird, which is already out.
If electronic companies follow suit, I guess this means that in 2020, Sony will issue a press release saying something to the effect of
'In answer to overwhelming demand from aging Gen Xers, Sony is pleased to announce the New Beta. The technology will be compleatly new and brought up to speed with todays ultra-high-definition digital displays, but will still have the old fashioned mid-80s charm of the orgininal Beta.'
People will flock to electronic stores, only to find that other then the flat black frount, the giant 'BETA' badge, and the retro-inspired dotted 'It's a Sony!' sticker, the New Beta is nothing like the old beta.
Linkin Park. Godsmack. Incubus. Coldplay. System of a Down. These are all bands who have become big in the last few years, and have had multiple hit songs.
And they all sound the same, with a mild execption for Pearl Jam for actually bringing some artistry to that sound. And again, with the possible execption for Pearl Jam, will all be forgotten in 10 years. I'm not saying they all suck, I'm just saying there is nothing about them that would make people want to return to them.
So because *you* can only think of one Real Big Band, there weren't any others? Are you kidding me? Green Day. The Offspring. Foo Fighters. Pearl Jam. Blink-182. Bush. No Doubt. Dave Matthews Band. Oasis. Goo Goo Dolls. 311. Everclear.
You're kidding me, right? Notice how Greenday mellowed out it's punk rock roots to get airplay? Notice how the Foo Fighters were never able to live up to the're former abilities? Notice how the Offspring ushered in a new generation of metal-rap (a band rivled only by AC/DC for having every single song follow the exact same format). I mean seriously, don't you have a little voice in side your head that says 'hey wait a minute, this is all carefully crafted pop music and I'm being suckered'? Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of that carefully crafted pop music that I like too, but I'm sure as hell not going to buy it, and the best the 90s have to offer in rock will sit right next to 'the Humpty Dance' as 'yeah, that was kinda neat'. Oasis is a funny addition to your list. It got very little airplay here in America, only after acheiving incredible success overseas, and only the toned down songs that passed the homoginzed muster.
Alternative is the name of that genre of music. It existed in the 80s, too, only you apparently are unaware of that fact. When alternative suddenly became a big deal (due to Nirvana's influence), what did you expect them to do? Change its name? That would just have confused people.
Alternative was an industry term for the genre. There were several; post modern, new rock, college rock, etc. The industry chose 'Alternitive', and shortly afterwords managed to alienate all of the genres root fanbase. The only thing that confused people was how quickly it started to suck.
Well, I haven't listened to stations in that many cities. Apparently you've been to all the major markets across the USA, so I'll take your word for it.
I have been to most of them, but if that doesn't do it for you, take a look at the format play lists of the larger multi-market stations, and you'll notice they are pretty much the same.
That's funny, I recall hearing quite a bit of very good music on the radio in the 90s. And buying numerous albums in response to hearing that music on the radio. *GASP* Maybe we like different kinds of music! And maybe it's okay if other people like music you think is crap, and vice-versa!
I remember hearing some not so bad music either. Again, I'm not saying it all sucks, I'm just saying that it's not nearly as good as what the 'industry' put out in previous decades, and what the independant music scene was able to eek out in the 90s.
What, do you seriously think there were no nameless one-hit-wonder artists in the 1980s? Or the 1970s? Or EVERY DECADE EVER?
Every decade has it's one hit wonders that are quickly forgotten. The problem is now, all the artists are one hit wonders.
In the 80s, bad meant good. In the 90s, alternative meant mainstream. Those wacky record types.
I can think, off the top of my head, of dozens of artists from the 50s-80s that I still listen to and enjoy. Artists that were big in their time and the quality of their music has allowed them to survive in the record store bins to this day.
Not true for the 90s. The only big named band that really took off in the 90s that I can think of is Nirvana, which ironically fueled the final nail into the corpritizing of the record industry (for the record, I did not, nor do not like their music, but apparently enough people do to keep them alive in the minds of hearts of countless fans).
In the Early 90s Nirvana hit the airwaves, and seemingly over-night the rock stations switched from an unnerving blend of techno-pop and glam metal to 'alternative', a term that makes me laugh. Since when is an industry reacting to market trends 'alternative'? Especially when every radio station that plays newly released rock calls themselves 'alternative'?
Now, of course, the alternative stations sound the same coast to coast. As far as I can tell, in the rock genre, the only thing the format is an alternative to is the 80s rock music station, the 60s-70s 'classic' rock stations, and the 50s-60s 'oldies' station.
This isn't to say that the 90s didn't put out quite a bit of good music, but none of it was found in the traditional 'hear a song on the radio, like it, buy an album'.