but recently in the UK there have been rumblings about the generally increasing age of the population and falling birth rates.
I always kind of laugh when the people who track stats like this get alarmed at the falling birth rates in Western countries. They universally seem to have an inability to associate the rising costs of living in a Western culture with the birth rate. I'm not a statistician but I have crunched some numbers for myself and found some interesting things:
For a single man/woman living alone with modest retirement savings and a life that doesn't consist *solely* of sitting in front of the TV all evening will need, at minimum 33,500 take home, after taxes. This of of course would fluctuate based on your locale as it's cheaper to live in some places than others. In general though, that's the basic amount you'll need to have an "okay" life that affords you some free cash for hobbies and dating
Dating is one of the bigger expenses that people don't like to think about, yet needs to be budgeted just as much as food, clothes, fuel, rent, etc... How much you spend for dating is up to you and would depend on your left over cash reserves. Still the average cost of a date is $75.00. Most women complain fairly early that they don't get to see you enough; you're going to be going out a least twice a week, pushing the cost of dating for a year to roughly 7,800.
If you're lucky, you'll find a progressive woman who understands that equality means not minding paying for every other date. In my experience they're rare. With most women taking a Victorian attitude to dating, (the man pays, for everything) making this is a cost borne mainly by men.
Now it usually takes a few years to decide if this is the *right* girl and you decide to get married. Once you do, the second person added to your household will put a significant strain on your monetary resources. In order to keep some semblance of each of your lives intact, you or her will need to earn at minimum an extra 15,000 per year after taxes. Your relationship shouldn't be sacrificed for your hobbies, but it is usually healthy for married couples to spend at least some time away from each other every week. If you spend all your time together you'll eventually have nothing to talk about, making communication difficult.
After a few years of marriage, you're going to start talking about kids. You'll want to set up saving plans for College/University, enroll them in soccer or another sport or perhaps an arts program. Not to mention the increased food and clothing costs. I figured that for each child you have you'll need at minimum 10,000 after tax dollars to do it. Yes, you could do it on less, you have to figure out your level of comfort for making sacrifices from other areas.
If you have two kids (which is what most people seem to go for these days), you'll need an additional 20,000. Let's all add this up:
33,500 - Single guy living alone. 15,000 - Single guy marries woman. 20,000 - Two kids in the family. 68,500 - After tax cost of raising a family.
Now please realize that this is *AFTER* taxes. This isn't your gross pay. Now going back to my original point. Raising a family in a Western society costs a lot of money. Heck just living along in Western society costs a lot of money. Most jobs aren't going to pay you the kind of gross you need for a 68,500 take home without some kind of University/College education.
So rather than having kids, like their parents did, all those 18-35 year olds that should be having kids are are in school trying their damnedest to educate themselves to a point where they can get a job so they can *afford* to settle down and have some kids.
I'm betting that in 10-15 years when all the baby boomers start retiring you'll see their kids who are coming out of school now have gotten far enough in their careers will feel they can afford a family, will start having kids, pushing the birth numbers back up.
Also, I'd bet good money when the PS3 becomes available Microsoft will conveniently announce a $249/$349 price break on the the 360, further making the $600 PS3 sticker more unreasonable. Maybe even a Halo 3 for good measure?
That's one of the reason's I held off on a 360. It would be in Microsoft's best interests to offer a price cut when the PS3 comes out.
Also I fully expect the HD-DVD drive to replace the current DVD that comes standard in the 360. This will encourage game companies to port their higher (space wise) content games from the PS3 to the 360. People with the older 360's will buy the add-on to play said games making this a double win for Microsoft.
Throw in the inevitable Halo 3 launch, or at least a teaser demo disc that's only available with the price cut 360 or to purchases of the HD-DVD add on and this could be a good year for MS.
So yeah, the deck is stacked unless the planet is hit with a asteroid the size of Manhattan. Well that's something to look forward to I guess.
Hell, I've been praying for this to happen.
I just *know* with certainty that Bruce Willis and Elijah Wood will save us in time. Before they do though, I'm taking advantage of the "End Of The World" hysteria and heading to the nearest College/University campus to make the ultimate Girls Gone Wild - Doomsday Orgy video.
Think about it, this is Slashdot; it'll probably be the only time any of us gets to have *sex*.
I'd love to see some kind of tiered pay structure set up. For example:
* $1.99 per episode on the day it's released.
* $1.99 x number of episodes - %discount for prepayment for pre-paying for a whole season that you can download whenever you want to.
* $1.49 per episode a couple of months after it's released.
* $1.49 per episode x number of episodes - %discount for volume purchase for a complete season after all episodes from that season have been released
* $0.49 "bargain bin" for shows that are several years old and that never really got good ratings
Good idea, but not quite right. I've often thought that this idea would be better:
*Free* - Standard 45 minute show grown to 1 hour ad supported format.
1.99 - 1 hour ad free show, extra 15 minutes content exclusive.
5.00 - 2 episodes shipped to you on a (HD)DVD, with access to 1 hour
downloads now.
40.00 - 24 epsiodes "season pass", or 22 episodes and two hour bonus
with discs shipped as above and special edition carrying box.
Make the content exclusive to this format for 18 months and then synicate the *free* version for broadcast. I think this could work great for just about any show out there and allow a viable "broadcast" market afterwards.
Conservatives aren't going to come to the defense of an "accused sex offender," and liberals don't want to "victimize the victim again" by giving you a trial, so you're just guilty. So if you're accused by anyone, you might as well go out and rape an orphan, because you're going to jail for it anyway.
The sad thing is I can see this exact thing happening as people do strange things when they're desperate.
Imagine if you somehow got on this list (I don't know, perhaps you took a piss in the woods or something). Now for the next six years, probably longer, you're going to have a difficult/impossible time getting a job and living your life. Perhaps you might be okay if your neighbors were open minded and realised that you didn't do anything to warrant being on the list.
For the most part though your life is essentially over. No job, few friends, neighbors hate and fear you, maybe even your wife leaving you. At this point, with all that stress I can fully see people going "Well if I'm accused of it and treated as a criminal I might as well just do it!" leading to an actual crime being commited where before there was none.
The sad part is, when this desperate person *does* commit a heinous crime the politicos will point to the list and say "See, he/she was on the list, it must be working because they assaulted that poor girl/boy."
Gotta love politicians, creating crimes where there were none before.
Do you people actually have 10hrs of spare time you can just sit down and play straight through? Don't you people have to work? Eat? Poo? Spend "quality time" with the wifey?
Right, this is/., what was I thinking.
And what happens if some of your teammates can't play that long. I can imagine for most people this experience is gonna suck as people constantly drop out midway through a game. Only the hardcore'est of hardcore is going enjoy this game to its fullest.
That's not even the worst of it. TFA mentioned that there was going to be 4-6 (or was that 6-8) maps available on launch. In the beginning I fully expect the games to take the 10 hours they say they will. But as people get better and start figuring out where stuff is, they *will* get shorter.
Which is all good right, unless you're like me. I just simply don't have the kind of time to devote to a full on 10 hour gaming session very often. Hell, I'm lucky I can put in a few hours every month in Halo 2 so that I don't feel I'm wasting my X-Box live membership.
So those of us with other commitments will now join a game with seasoned veterans who *know* where everything is and can finish the game in two hours, kicking your ass the whole time. Yes, I know the article says that they're going to eliminate that with this weird ranking system that supposed to disincentivise people from killing lower ranking players, but damned if you won't find people who *love* to Team Kill/Griefer just the same.
At least they're addressing the one problem I've always hated by putting automated turrets and missle launchers next to the base. It'll go a long way towards stopping them bastard base (spawn) campers. I don't care if you camp, really I don't, they wouldn't put sniper rifles in games if they didn't *want* you to camp. Just don't camp the spawn points (Oh look, Pete's respawning, let's get 'im with a headshot before he moves two feet! I am SOOO l33t, I 0wn3rz y0u!!), it's lame and shows a marked lack of maturity.
A friend of mine has this PC. Do whatever you want to it, remove cards, swap cables, whatever. Just don't unplug the mouse.
It's weird, if you unplug the mouse, even when all cables are disconnected, if you plug it back in and turn on the PC it won't recognize it without reformatting the drive and reinstalling the OS. Even trying different serial buses didn't fix it. It also didn't matter what the OS used was either (we tried Linux, various Windows flavours, even a few "live" CDs), the mouse wouldn't work again until you reformatted and reinstalled the OS.
We thought it was the mouse so we tried it on different PC's and it worked fine.
We could never figure it out, so he taped the mouse to the case and he yells, loudly, at anyone who even thinks of unplugging it.;-)
I have no illusions, I know that I am considered expendable hardware by the company I work for. If you think you're not, you're being delusional. There is some accountant deep within the company that looks at profits vs wages correlated with productivity, efficiency and shareholder demands. If I reach a certain point on the scale where "he keeps his job" turns to "he's an unproductive/shareholder liability", I loose my job, it's that simple.
Despite excellent performance reviews and kudos from management for hard work and dedication, I've been downsized a number of times to satisfy the demands for increased shareholder value.
So I am intimatly aware that no amount of "hard work" ever translates into "keeping your job" once you reach that cost benefit analysis. I learned a long time ago to squirrel money away for the inevitable lay-off doing what is necessary to keep my job, while working a 40 hour week, for as long I possibly can.
Don't think I'm lazy, I have a strong work ethic and put in 110% for every job I do, even if I hate it (which I currently do). There's simply no point doing something if you're not going to do it right since it just wastes everyones time.
Still, for some perspective, consider this... Each day is 24 hours long.
You will sleep approximatley 8 hours a day, yes you can sleep more or less, but the average is 8 hours.
This leave 16 hours, 8 of which you will be at work. 8 hours of your day now remain.
You'll problaby spend at least half an hour every morning getting ready for work (ie: shower, breakfast, etc..).
You now have 7.50 hours left. Unless you're lukcy to live next door to your workplace, you're going to problaby spend between 2 to 3 hours each day commuting, I'll average it out and say 2.50 hours.
That leaves 5.00 hours. Of course, you need to eat, so you're going to spend about an hour at the grocery store picking up food.
4.00 hours left. You have to cook it then clean up after yourself; while you're at it make lunch for the next day, so let's take another two hours off. Granted, I could buy my lunch and dinner every day and get back those two hours back, which I do sometimes as it isn't as expensive you might expect.
Food costs are normally about 100-150 a week per person, as long as you keep each meal to under 10-15 dollars (20/30 per day) not counting breakfast which can be cheap; the mega box of cereal usually lasts about a week. Overall you'll spend slightly more money (40/60) but get back that two hours each day. The downside is that fast food can lead to unhealthy weight gain so you'll need to be careful in your choices (Hi it's Jared from Subway;-) ). In the end you need to decide how much your free time is worth to you.
You now have a grand total of 2 hours a day remaining (4 if you buy your lunch/dinner) to spend as you wish. Which isn't much (LOTR is approximatly 2 hours 58 minutes) when you think about it. You can get up to two extra hours if you sacrifice on sleep (6 hours a night is the minimum most people need), but that can impact your alertness on the job affecting your overall employability.
With only 2 to 6 hours of free time daily, (with the average being 4) I am extremely reticent to work any overtime that cuts into my "living a life" time without a significant increase in compensation and then only for short periods of extreme necessity.
I was going to suggest the same thing with the tables.;-)
Another thing to think about is being open to taking orders for gaming products. You don't need to keep huge amounts of stock in store (other than Magic cards, kids and adults seem to eat them up), but if you get known as the guy who can get stuff at decent prices it can help with word of mouth and goodwill.
Depending on the size of the place you're using, think seriously about a quiet area with comfy chairs so people can talk and relax between games, or just meet friends there. Also, watch your music slections, too much pounding base or incessant (c)Rap music will alienate your older customers; music is background noise to break the monotony, it shouldn't be too loud that customers have to shout over it.
Also, and I really wish places would start doing this, get lockers. Seriously. If you have gaming tables setup for people to play they will inevitably bring in gym bags full of gaming materials. Then, as a customer, I will spend half my time tripping over bags, jackets and the like. Get lockers, you can charge a couple of bucks for a lock and key that's returned when they leave and they have a place to put their crap in.
Finally, think about putting your store in a place next to a sub shop or pizza place. Not only will you both get cross traffic, but you might be able to work out a deal where they provide catering services for your establishment. Even if they don't, the location means your hungry clients will be tempted to go "next door" rather than go home, making it likley they keep playing when they're done.
There's a place in town here (Cambridge Ontario Canada) That does fairly well (open for a year now)
I understand you're trying to be vauge because the place you are talking about probably has a website that you don't want to get Slashdotted (at least I hope that's what it is). Thing is, could you be slightly more specific? I live in Southwestern Ontario and would be interested in checking this place out.
While I agree that your "all or nothing" idea would undoubtedly make for some interesting involved gameplay, I don't think it would work as well as you'd expect.
I'm sure we've all played the type of games that have the "bosses from hell". Those games where the designer thought it would be oh so fun to put in a boss so insanley hard to beat you simply can't do it *without* dying multiple times. Those games where your "team" keeps attacking and attacking using all type of power ups, health kits, magic spells, ammo enhancers, so on and so forth. Those levels where you throw every possible thing at the "bad guy" (or worse, mutliple "bad guys") who seemingly shrugs off each attack while their decimating attacks whittle you down, eventually killing you and all your team mates. Then to make it even more frustrating, if you do manage to get the bad guy "almost" dead, he uses some spell to drain the life of your team mates, a health kit, or just plain regenerates half his/her life points virtually assuring the near victory will end in complete frustration for the player.
I hate this kind of thing in games as it is and I can reload them over and over. Now I don't know about you, but I don't have much time to invest in a game anymore, life is simply too hectic and busy (took me over a year and half with 100+ hours of gameplay to finish SW:KOTOR) so when I play I want to have fun. If I played a game for twenty minutes let alone ten to twenty hours and had to restart because I lost my team but wasn't allowed to reload because you only got one life, I'd be pissed and stop playing.
In order for this idea to work the game would need to be so dumbed down and easy that each mission would have to be winnable the first time for pretty much everyone. Not that that would be so bad, if the game was short (you don't want to get to hour 50 and have to restart at the beginning) and the story good I could see myself playing it. Hell, it could be a whole new market, easy winnable games with good stories for busy people who don't have 100+ hours to devote to a good RPG (with really crappy boss fights;-) ).
While I would agree with you if you're going for a larger screen, I did find a nice 27 inch http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon =&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10063717&catid=23239 Toshiba High-Def flat panel tube TV at Best-Buy the other day. Sure it was 499.99, but if you're not looking for a large 50+ inch screen and still want to get into Hi-Def since you need to replace the 25/30 incher you have now this would make a nice Hi-Def set to take home.
I've always found the "until *most* of the content is HD" argument specious at best. I bought my 51" Toshiba Rear Projection (51HX83) set a few years ago simply because of HD. I found that most of the shows in prime-time on all the major networks (usually what Joe Sixpack watches) are in HD and all the cool PBS-HD and Discovery-HD content rounds out the HD conent spectrum enough that I seldom have the need to watch standard def anymore. Sure I pay a bit more on the cable bill for the priveledge of having the HD-PVR, but I didn't spend a few grand to watch Standard Def.
I do agree with you in respect to the players; they need to come down in price. Once they do, I think you'll find more people will get into HD, especially since it's gotten quite cheap and there's quite a bit of programming out there now. Until then I guess I'll have to wait to get Stargate SG-1, Smallville, NCIS, etc... on HD-DVD.;-)
I apologize, I didn't mean my comment to appear to come down hard on you. I was trying to illustrate using an extreme analogy the folly of using the phrase "I have nothing to hide" because there *are* some people out there that think people who fight for their privacy rights "probably have something to hide"; with a connotation towards it being a "bad" something.
I agree that they're not functionally equivalent phrases, obviously some people hide "bad" things, most people don't. I do think that for the majority of law abiding citizens they are tied closley together. The whole idea of personal privacy is to keep certain aspects of your life hidden from those you do not wish to share them with.
Like your comment about the bathroom. Yes if you go in and close the door you're probably taking a crap and do I hope you turn on the fan.;-) However you could also be a diabetic checking your blood surgars and because people treat you differently when they find out, you don't really want anyone other than close family and friends knowing about it.
I won't even mention all the kinky things you might be doing with your wife after you close the blinds.;-)
Saying that you have *nothing* to hide is likely true in the "legal" sense in respect to the illegal wiretaps. Yet in terms of your private life I'm certain you wouldn't want anyone to listen and take notes while Aunt Irma complains about Uncle Phil's cheating with the lady in accounting again.
I hate "I have nothing to hide" because it can and often does give ammunition to those who seek to do their jobs easier (only terrorists want privacy) by undermining our right to privacy. Everyone has the right to hide aspects of their lives from other people and strong protection of our privacy rights is the only real way of keeping it that way.
Would it be okay then if I came over to your house and went through your bookshelf, I'm really curious to see what kinds of books you read. Oh, you read *those* kinds of books huh? But you got nothin' to hide so I guess it won't bother you if I tell all your neighbors about it huh? Woah, what's that over there? No, over there on the coffe table. That's your wife, damn she's hot, you wouldn't mind if I stick around later and watch you guys have sex huh? What, the video camera, well damn man your wife is hot and I gots tons of friends on the internet that would love to get video of you tapping that. Dude, you're phone's ringing it's your Dad, you want me to go? Why, you want some privacy, how come, I thought you had nothing to hide?
I abso-frackin'-lutley hate it when people say they have nothing to hide. EVERYONE has something to hide. Our lives are private and we should have every right to decide who, when and what information we divulge to others as well as expect those that deal with our personal information to keep it just as private.
I know how you feel. I'm 32 and recently went through the same thing.
Like your stereotypical geek, when I'm around women I find attractive I tend to get nervous, timid and utterly pathetic. I am simply incapable of talking to them without making myself sound like a complete and total moron. So I don't think it's much of a shock that I haven't dated much, and when I do it's usually well intentioned friends who try to set me up on blind dates that never end well.
That doesn't stop me from looking because once in a long while I will meet a woman whom I find irresistible yet am still able to be completely comfortable and full of confidence around. It really doesn't happen that often (8 times in fifteen years), but when it does it's great. Unfortunately I haven't met one yet that wasn't already in a strong committed relationship. Well that is until I met this girl.
It was just under two years ago when I was 30. I decided to go to this Japanese restaurant I'd read good things about. When I walked in, there she was and almost right away I was taken with her. Since I used to work in a restaurant, I sympathize with what they go through so I tend to be relaxed and friendly with the staff. It paid off, because she spent a lot of time at my table. We got along so well, I decided to go back the next week. Every Thursday over the next few weeks I got to know her better as she spent a fair bit of time at my table. She's very independent and knows what she wants out of life, working two jobs along with studying hard to get it; she's strong willed, highly intelligent, smart, and has real genuine passion towards her interests and learning new ones.
Not only did she appear to be into me, the best part was, not once throughout the entire six weeks (I gave her ample opportunity) I spent getting to know her did she mention a boyfriend. I just simply couldn't believe my luck. My family had wanted to see this girl I'd been raving about, (the food is *very* good there, so it wasn't a stretch to take them in) they all got along extremely well and absolutely adored her.
I had finally worked up the courage and was *this* close to asking her out when she dropped the bomb. You see, the whole time I'd been getting to know her I was certain she was in her early to mid twenties. She was way too mature and together in the head to be anything but. She looked early twenties, she acted early twenties and was mature like early twenties. I was convinced she was early twenties, my family was convinced she was early twenties and while that's normally a bit younger than what I go for, I was convinced it could work and that she was worth the effort.
I never once thought to ask how old she was. Nothing she said or did the whole time I'd spent getting to know her pointed to or could have prepared me for her real age. I'm think she knew the embarrassment it would cause me if I asked her out and she had to turn me down, so she worked it into the conversation and told me how old she was.
17
Not a clue. My family didn't guess, my sister who can spot a fake ID carrying teeny-bopper a 100 yards away (she used to work in a group home, lots of experience) didn't guess. But most importantly I didn't guess and I was devastated. Here was a girl that was utterly perfect for me in just about every way I could think of and she was 13 years my junior. I could have probably pushed for it, I could tell she liked me, but it just wouldn't have been right to press for it. No matter how much I wanted it to happen, I couldn't be that selfish guy who would try to force her into an adult relationship that would deny her her "best years" (I didn't do any fun stuff or grow as a person until my late teens early twenties.).
So I did the only thing I could. I let it go.
I still go there (the food *is* good) but I usually avoid her shift. No sense picking at it needlessly. Although, every once in a while she or I will change our day. We're always happy to see one another and it gives us time to
While being funny, I think it underscorses a unique point about this proprosal that deserves some thought. It's all fine and dandy to check for rootkits and be big on security. If it was fair and labelled a rootkit as a rootkit, I wouldn't see too much problem with it. In a world of viruses, trojans, spyware/adware, etc... it would be nice to have one less thing to guard against.
But I see this as yet another way to bully the small guy who might be eroding a big corps market share ("Your software hurts us financially, shareholders blah blah blah, we'll throw a bunch of money at Intel and threaten them with out patent portfolio unless they mark it as a rootkit so it won't install."). Then at the same time allowing Sony to pull their rootkit crap and call it a "feature" and since it passed the "Intel Test" you could be sued for defamation of character or some such thing for daring to call a spade a spade.
I like your idea, I've certainly seen some fan-films that should have the opportunity to be made into full blown feature films.
The problem is your idea just shows how messed up the state of copyright and it's seemingly endless extensions are. We shouldn't be begging Lucas to "will" the franchise to the public, it should have already been released to the public. If Lucas doesn't do as you suggest, it's more than likley most of us reading this will be dead when it hits the public domain. Assuming of course the cartels don't manage to bri... I mean "successfully lobby" congress to again extend the terms.
There is absolutley no viable reason '*' that Star Wars or everything else I watched, read or listened to as a child 25 years ago to have not hit the public domain by now.
Pete...
'*': No, before you state it, rampant uncontrolled greed is not a viable reason to usurp the public good, just because it happens all the time, doesn't make it right.
Unless the controllers come with a 12 hour play time and 30 second recharge, I honestly think their decision to go with wireless controllers is going to bite Microsoft in the ass.
People want their controllers and games to "just work".
Forgot to plug in your controller last night? You just *know* you're going to run out of power when your in first place on your favourite race game. Or when you're about to capture the flag for your team in the latest shooter.
Use the headset and controller vibration? You'll just drain the batteries even faster.
Sure, it's a nice idea on paper having the controllers wireless. But that first time your controller dies in the middle of your game making you have to wait four to six hours for it to recharge, you're going to wish you bought a Playstation 3.
No, Lucas would never allow that. But that's only part of the problem.
I've seen Fan Films on theforce.net that have better stories and more passion than the first two prequels. Films, that given a proper budget, would make for a much more interesting and entertaining film than what we've been given.
The problem isn't Lucas or his inept story telling. The real problem is the 90+ year term of copyrights.
I was born in 1973. Even though the copyright on the original Star Wars will technically end and enter the public domain around 2070 (unless the industry successfully lobbies congress for yet another extension), it might as well be forever since I would never be able to use it. There is a good chance, barring any serious illness or death, that I will die sometime before then.
The original Star Wars came out when I was kid. I can't help but have been influenced by it. I have some ideas I would love to work on. Not just for Star Wars, but other original concepts as well. While I think people would like my ideas, they're ideas I'm afraid to work on. They draw so heavily from the influences of various media in my youth that there would be a good chance I'd be sued for some form of infringement.
We shouldn't need Lucas's permission to tell a story in the Star Wars universe. In a sane world the original Star Wars would have passed into the public domain two years ago. We could then tell the stories ourselves.
You're right. It is only Television. You don't need it to live. Even still, unless you get your jollies off staring at the wall,/* See http://www.oddtodd.com for a good laugh about that.;-) */ you do need some form of Entertainment. Unless you are in the position to be making a large sum of money, you will be hard pressed to purchase books, go to concerts, or take out the small bank loan needed to go to your local movie-plex.
Yes, I could go to a Library and borrow books, CD's, and movies. That doesn't change the fact most Libraries won't loan you more than 3-4 items at a time; and unless the Library is within walking distance of your house you're still going to have to take a bus or drive. Either way it's going to cost you money.
So for most people TV is the cheap option. For $15 - $25 a month you get access to a number of TV shows, some movies, and a few music programs. The thing is though, for some people/* Like me. */ they don't want all the channels. Or you're forced to buy others you don't want in order to get to the ones you do want. Even when I'd rather just pick the few I want.
When I'm forced to pay for something I don't want in order to get the things I do want, it kind of pisses me off.
Using your car analogy...
Suppose I want a simple plain Jane car. Something that gets me from point A to point B, has really amazing gas mileage and doesn't cost a whole lot to maintain. Suppose I commute to work each day, and it's 3 hours round trip. Since I'm going to be sitting in traffic for so long, I want comfy leather seats. If that's the way I want it, I can actually buy it that way.
Sure I'll pay extra for the comfy seats. But if that's all I want, I have the option of doing that.
Yet if that same auto-maker was being run by a cable company, I would have to purchase Air-Conditioning, Power Windows and an in dash CD Player before I could get the comfy seats. I don't know about you, but I'd be mighty upset if I had to go to that kind of trouble just to get some comfy seats.
It's counter intuitive to the way it should work. I, as the customer, should only have to purchase what I want.
They could even make it easy, charge me $15.00 a month for basic cable. My local channels, a network affiliate from each of the networks./* ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN, WB, CTV, CBC, Global */
From there they could go on to a simple pay scale like this:
01-05 Channels / $2.00 each.
06-10 Channels / $1.50 each.
11-20 Channels / $1.00 each.
21+ Channels / $0.75 each.
All non-premium/ non-movie channels / $30.00 - $35.00
This way I could get my basic cable, Much Music, Much More Music, Discovery, TLC, Space: The Imagination Station, and Family Channel. It would only cost me $24.00/month instead of the $45.00/month that I'm paying now for the same 6 channels.
You could even pick the premium channles without getting any regular channels if you want. Of course it would cost more, but if you picked some of the lower channels you could get percentage discounts.
Perhaps like this:
01-05 Channels / 15% off premium/movie
06-10 Channels / 20% off premium/movie
11-20 Channels / 25% off premium/movie
21+ Channels / 35% off premium/movie
All non-premium/non-movie channels / 50% off premium/movie
Now I could get the Movie Network and assuming it cost $20.00, on top of my six choices above it would be $40.00/month, which is still cheaper than what I currently pay.
Computers would make tracking all this stuff VERY easy so it shouldn't be very hard to implement.
The sad thing is though, they'd rather make us pay $50.00 - $100.00/month for the 100-200 channels we don't watch rather than allow us to pay $24.00 for the six channels we do.
I remember back when I was a kid, I convinced my parents to sneak me into the Drive In to watch the original Terminator on the big screen. I remember being blown away by the action, the story, and well... okay, I had a school-boy crush on Linda Hamilton.;-)
Of course when T2 came out I hadn't seen the original in years, so I went out and rented it from the local Video Store and checked it out again. Again I rather enjoyed it, and was able to have an even deeper understanding of the films story.
Then I went and saw T2, and I started to feel uneasy. For it was then that I started to realize that the entire film was basically just a rehash of the entire first film.
The structure, plotting, even the scenes are almost completely ripped off from the first movie. From the arrival scene, to the "Finding *insert* Connor.", to the ending sequence where both films ended with a car chase, tanker explosion, and a climactic battle scene in a manufacturing plant with lots of belts and gears and pullies and crap.
It was almost as if Cameron had didn't really bother to come up with anything new. So when I found out that he wasn't doing it I was quite happy. Not because I think his movies suck, but more because I didn't really want to see a rehash of T1 & T2 yet again.
But after watching that trailer, I'm pretty conviced that we're going to see the same film as the first two.
We're going to have a similar arrival experience, although with the Bimbornator it might be interesting. Then we're going to be subjected to a wasteful 20-30 minutes of "Is the Bimbornator bad or good, and just where in the heck is John Connor, and why doesn't he look like Eddie Furlong, anyway?" Despite the fact that all the advertising for the film is going to make it quite obvious that Bimbornator is bad, Arnie is good.
We're going to probably have a the flimsy filler that will attempt to make a story, but will probably follow quite closley to the original plot, "John you are destined to be this great leader, you better make sure you don't die! Oh and by the way, this evil Sky-Net thing you killed in the last movie, it didn't die."
It will most likley end with a cheesy car chase scene,/* Arnie hanging from a crane driving down the street? Or would this be a rehash of the "Saving ____ Connor from the evil terminator by jumping in front of, on, or shooting at the chase vehicle?" scene? */ followed by a big truck exploding ending with a fight in some factory type of place.
The sad part though is that the coolest part, the first 15-20 minutes of the movie that takes place in the future, would probably make a more interesting and exciting movie to watch.
But the even sadder part though, I'll probably go and see it. Even though I know it'll probably suck badly, deep down I have this faint hope that they might actually make this film interesting, exciting and worth seeing.
Oh, and one last thing... Did anyone else get the feeling that when the Bimbornator was running through the forest in the red leather outfit; that for just a split second you were watching a trailer for an upcoming episode of Buffy?;-)
You also forgot the recent episode where Dylan and crew end up on the Beleraphon (sp?) fighting the Ogami. The scene where Dylan is helping the Captain repell the invasion, talk about long.
The bloody scene lasted almost the entire length between the commercial breaks. Endless shots of Dylan jumping through the air shooting at Ogami, ducking under Ogami fire and taking them out from around corners. The small amount of dialouge that *was* there basically consisted of "Watch Out!", "Thanks for saving my ass!", "Whoah!!! Who's the babe!!!" and other such tripe.
Okay, okay, I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here, but I was starting to fall asleep; pretty explosions can only hold your attention for a short time.;-)
I guess this is what they meant by this season being more 'action' oriented. It's a shame. The show was never "Excellent" but it didn't totally suck either. It had some interesting ideas and the concept had promise if excecuted right.
Yet so far this season, every episode has had some kind of excessive action sequence where Dylan is fighting against a number of bad guys, by himself no less, or with someone who is essentially innefectual; that in the end really served no purpose other than fill time and/or Kevin Sorbo's ego.
As I watch this show I have to wonder just what the hell Sorbo was thinking when he thought that *this* is what people want to see. I agree with the guy above, this show is quickly turing into "Hercules: The Space Journeys".
What's next? Lucy Lawless showing up as "Xendromeda" the evil High Guard warship who, in retaliation for The Fall, Nova Bomed a number of Nietzschean solar systems. Then after a rousing guilt tripping speach from Dylan she suddenly feels oh so guilty about it and devotes her life to making amends for her sins.
Or how about this for a really interesting plot twist. That big old "Scary God of the Magogg" is really good old Ares in disguise.;-)/* LOL */
Imagine if you will a Science presentation on the Solar System. Watching badly edited documentaries from the 1950's, or slides that are so old and grainy they look like ink-blots.
Now imagine if they could pop up an image of the Sun that's 10 Feet x 10 Feet in full 3-D. Viewing the properties of Sun-spots up close or watching a prominence burst forth. Then going to a 2/3 view and showing the different layers of the sun and how they all work. Then zoom into the core and show a representation of the fusion process. Or pull out and watch the death of the Sun and how it swallows up the Earth. Then moving on to the other planets. Driving around the Martian surface, or doing the Voyager 1-2 tour. All of it done in stunning 3-D.
Or the Chemistry class where instead of the teacher drawing the various bonds on a chalk board he/she slips on a modified Power-Glove,/* You remember those, 80's 8-bit Nintendo VR controller. */ and actually grabs the different molecules and puts them together and then Rotates them so you can see how they're all combined.
What about the Biology class where instead of talking about DNA or looking at it in a book the teacher could put up a floating 3-D replica of it then manipulate it. They could show a heart beating and isolate the various chambers to show what they do. Then zoom out to show the entire circulatory system. Or phase it out and concentrate on the bone structure or nervous system. It would definitely go a ways into appeasing those who are ambivalent towards the dissection experiments.
You could even use it in Art classes to show different sculptures, landscapes, and monuments from around the world.
Or a History class that depicts various moments in history. Imagine watching D-Day in 3-D. Placing you in the action so that you could begin to have an idea of what it might have been like to be there.
Hell, you could even use it in Sex-Ed. Get rid of those incredibly bad 70's movies with dialogue worse than a Blacksploitation flick. You could actually show an egg leaving the ovaries, roll down the fallopian tubes and into the womb. Or show sperm production from scrotum to ejaculation. All the while rotating, and zooming in and out for effect.
This would be an invaluable tool for Secondary Schools. Most kids don't pay attention as it is because the classes are "boring", lots of facts and figures but no real way of putting it together. You either get it, or you don't. But this way you could actually "show" the kids what you're trying to teach them.
Make it fun, make it exciting, or at the very least interesting, and I think you'll start seeing kids understand and care a little more about learning than they did when I was in school.
For $10,000.00 I can't imagine why any school shouldn't have this type of set up.
Since your complaining though about $14.00 movie prices being bad just thought I'd mention that up here in Canada we've been paying $12.00+ for the past few years now.
Most places charge as much as $12.00+ with matinee shows around $10.00!!!! Granted there *are* cheaper venues, but they tend to show older films and/or the seats are so uncomfortable you spend the whole time wishing the movie was over so you can go home and relax.
It's been rumoured some places are going to start charging $13.00+ by the end of this summer.
As the prices are so high, do you want to guess how many movies I've been to see in the last few months? Ummm, let's see. There was "Lord of the Rings" way back in December. Then my sister wanted to see a really bad movie with a hot chick who can marginally sing. The fact that she wears skanky outfits for 1.5 hours had nothing to do with why I was willing to go./* LOL */ The 10 minutes at the beginning where she's wearing nothing but bra and panties was WELL worth the $10.00 matinee price.;-)
Still in all seriousness, it's got to be a film that I *really* want to see before I'm going to spend that kind of money. Then if I want to take a friend with me, it gets even more stupid.
Movie x 2: $ 12.00 x 2 = $24.00 Popcorn: $ 5.50 x 2 = $11.00 Drinks: $ 5.50 x 2 = $11.00
Total: $46.00
Forget taking the kids to see a family movie like "Shrek" or "Ice Age" without taking out a small bank-loan first.
Hell even the established "Dinner and a Movie" date becomes prohibitivley expensive once you consider that you're probably going to spend about $30.00-$50.00 on top of the $46.00 you've already spent.
As it is I'll probably only see 3 films this summer. "Spiderman", "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones", and "Blade II".
I'd watch more, but let's face it, $12.00 is insane.
Right now, it costs an insane ammount of money to launch a spacecraft. As I'm sure you all know, the more it weighs, the more it costs. Some sattelites can cost upwards of $100 Million or more to launch. I read somewhere that almost *all* of the costs asociated with SpaceFlight is attributed to getting the stuff of the ground in the first place.
So it's really mind boggling that they want to destroy all this so-called *junk*.
How may of the these so called "non-functioning" sattelites have functional, or close to functional rocket motors? How about fuel tanks that weren't all the way depleted. Or solar panels, or computer chips. Granted, some of the technology is outdated, okay most of it is outdated. But still, it's already *there*. No expensive launches, no planning, nothing. Need a solar panel, grab it off that sattelite over there, need a new hull, rip a section off that one over there. Wanna hook a rocket motor to it, grab it from there. Hey look, that sattelite still has some fuel left, grab it's fuel tank.
Need to do any welding, metal work, just use the sun. It's already 350+ degrees in the sun, just imagine how hot it would be if you amplified it. Gives burning ants in the sun with a magnifying glass a whole new meaning.;-) Not to mention that any metalwork that you do would be *perfect*, or darned near close to it, since you're doing it in zero-g. When it reforms, it would be uniform. Yes, I know that all things melted would turn into spheres in space. So, you melt it once, let it cool, and then heat it up enough to make it pliable.
There's plenty of computer equipment out there to use in whatever it is that you build. Want to send a mission to the moon, you could do it for FAR cheaper by recycling what is already there, than to build it on the ground and ship it up.
Just imagine how fast and cheap they could build a space station, deep space probes, lunar mining equipment, orbital maneuvering vehicles, etc.. NASA is always going on about being smaller, faster, cheaper. Well you don't get any cheaper than almost free. Besides, aren't they always talking about the three R's. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Perhaps they should start listening to what they've been preaching.
Slashdot Mirror
I always kind of laugh when the people who track stats like this get alarmed at the falling birth rates in Western countries. They universally seem to have an inability to associate the rising costs of living in a Western culture with the birth rate. I'm not a statistician but I have crunched some numbers for myself and found some interesting things:
For a single man/woman living alone with modest retirement savings and a life that doesn't consist *solely* of sitting in front of the TV all evening will need, at minimum 33,500 take home, after taxes. This of of course would fluctuate based on your locale as it's cheaper to live in some places than others. In general though, that's the basic amount you'll need to have an "okay" life that affords you some free cash for hobbies and dating
Dating is one of the bigger expenses that people don't like to think about, yet needs to be budgeted just as much as food, clothes, fuel, rent, etc... How much you spend for dating is up to you and would depend on your left over cash reserves. Still the average cost of a date is $75.00. Most women complain fairly early that they don't get to see you enough; you're going to be going out a least twice a week, pushing the cost of dating for a year to roughly 7,800.
If you're lucky, you'll find a progressive woman who understands that equality means not minding paying for every other date. In my experience they're rare. With most women taking a Victorian attitude to dating, (the man pays, for everything) making this is a cost borne mainly by men.
Now it usually takes a few years to decide if this is the *right* girl and you decide to get married. Once you do, the second person added to your household will put a significant strain on your monetary resources. In order to keep some semblance of each of your lives intact, you or her will need to earn at minimum an extra 15,000 per year after taxes. Your relationship shouldn't be sacrificed for your hobbies, but it is usually healthy for married couples to spend at least some time away from each other every week. If you spend all your time together you'll eventually have nothing to talk about, making communication difficult.
After a few years of marriage, you're going to start talking about kids. You'll want to set up saving plans for College/University, enroll them in soccer or another sport or perhaps an arts program. Not to mention the increased food and clothing costs. I figured that for each child you have you'll need at minimum 10,000 after tax dollars to do it. Yes, you could do it on less, you have to figure out your level of comfort for making sacrifices from other areas.
If you have two kids (which is what most people seem to go for these days), you'll need an additional 20,000. Let's all add this up:
33,500 - Single guy living alone.
15,000 - Single guy marries woman.
20,000 - Two kids in the family.
68,500 - After tax cost of raising a family.
Now please realize that this is *AFTER* taxes. This isn't your gross pay. Now going back to my original point. Raising a family in a Western society costs a lot of money. Heck just living along in Western society costs a lot of money. Most jobs aren't going to pay you the kind of gross you need for a 68,500 take home without some kind of University/College education.
So rather than having kids, like their parents did, all those 18-35 year olds that should be having kids are are in school trying their damnedest to educate themselves to a point where they can get a job so they can *afford* to settle down and have some kids.
I'm betting that in 10-15 years when all the baby boomers start retiring you'll see their kids who are coming out of school now have gotten far enough in their careers will feel they can afford a family, will start having kids, pushing the birth numbers back up.
Pete...
That's one of the reason's I held off on a 360. It would be in Microsoft's best interests to offer a price cut when the PS3 comes out.
Also I fully expect the HD-DVD drive to replace the current DVD that comes standard in the 360. This will encourage game companies to port their higher (space wise) content games from the PS3 to the 360. People with the older 360's will buy the add-on to play said games making this a double win for Microsoft.
Throw in the inevitable Halo 3 launch, or at least a teaser demo disc that's only available with the price cut 360 or to purchases of the HD-DVD add on and this could be a good year for MS.
Pete...
Hell, I've been praying for this to happen.
I just *know* with certainty that Bruce Willis and Elijah Wood will save us in time. Before they do though, I'm taking advantage of the "End Of The World" hysteria and heading to the nearest College/University campus to make the ultimate Girls Gone Wild - Doomsday Orgy video.
Think about it, this is Slashdot; it'll probably be the only time any of us gets to have *sex*.
Good idea, but not quite right. I've often thought that this idea would be better:
*Free* - Standard 45 minute show grown to 1 hour ad supported format.
1.99 - 1 hour ad free show, extra 15 minutes content exclusive.
5.00 - 2 episodes shipped to you on a (HD)DVD, with access to 1 hour
downloads now.
40.00 - 24 epsiodes "season pass", or 22 episodes and two hour bonus
with discs shipped as above and special edition carrying box.
Make the content exclusive to this format for 18 months and then synicate the *free* version for broadcast. I think this could work great for just about any show out there and allow a viable "broadcast" market afterwards.
Pete...
The sad thing is I can see this exact thing happening as people do strange things when they're desperate.
Imagine if you somehow got on this list (I don't know, perhaps you took a piss in the woods or something). Now for the next six years, probably longer, you're going to have a difficult/impossible time getting a job and living your life. Perhaps you might be okay if your neighbors were open minded and realised that you didn't do anything to warrant being on the list.
For the most part though your life is essentially over. No job, few friends, neighbors hate and fear you, maybe even your wife leaving you. At this point, with all that stress I can fully see people going "Well if I'm accused of it and treated as a criminal I might as well just do it!" leading to an actual crime being commited where before there was none.
The sad part is, when this desperate person *does* commit a heinous crime the politicos will point to the list and say "See, he/she was on the list, it must be working because they assaulted that poor girl/boy."
Gotta love politicians, creating crimes where there were none before.
Pete...
That's not even the worst of it. TFA mentioned that there was going to be 4-6 (or was that 6-8) maps available on launch. In the beginning I fully expect the games to take the 10 hours they say they will. But as people get better and start figuring out where stuff is, they *will* get shorter.
Which is all good right, unless you're like me. I just simply don't have the kind of time to devote to a full on 10 hour gaming session very often. Hell, I'm lucky I can put in a few hours every month in Halo 2 so that I don't feel I'm wasting my X-Box live membership.
So those of us with other commitments will now join a game with seasoned veterans who *know* where everything is and can finish the game in two hours, kicking your ass the whole time. Yes, I know the article says that they're going to eliminate that with this weird ranking system that supposed to disincentivise people from killing lower ranking players, but damned if you won't find people who *love* to Team Kill/Griefer just the same.
At least they're addressing the one problem I've always hated by putting automated turrets and missle launchers next to the base. It'll go a long way towards stopping them bastard base (spawn) campers. I don't care if you camp, really I don't, they wouldn't put sniper rifles in games if they didn't *want* you to camp. Just don't camp the spawn points (Oh look, Pete's respawning, let's get 'im with a headshot before he moves two feet! I am SOOO l33t, I 0wn3rz y0u!!), it's lame and shows a marked lack of maturity.
Pete...
A friend of mine has this PC. Do whatever you want to it, remove cards, swap cables, whatever. Just don't unplug the mouse.
;-)
It's weird, if you unplug the mouse, even when all cables are disconnected, if you plug it back in and turn on the PC it won't recognize it without reformatting the drive and reinstalling the OS. Even trying different serial buses didn't fix it. It also didn't matter what the OS used was either (we tried Linux, various Windows flavours, even a few "live" CDs), the mouse wouldn't work again until you reformatted and reinstalled the OS.
We thought it was the mouse so we tried it on different PC's and it worked fine.
We could never figure it out, so he taped the mouse to the case and he yells, loudly, at anyone who even thinks of unplugging it.
Pete...
I have no illusions, I know that I am considered expendable hardware by the company I work for. If you think you're not, you're being delusional. There is some accountant deep within the company that looks at profits vs wages correlated with productivity, efficiency and shareholder demands. If I reach a certain point on the scale where "he keeps his job" turns to "he's an unproductive/shareholder liability", I loose my job, it's that simple.
;-) ). In the end you need to decide how much your free time is worth to you.
Despite excellent performance reviews and kudos from management for hard work and dedication, I've been downsized a number of times to satisfy the demands for increased shareholder value.
So I am intimatly aware that no amount of "hard work" ever translates into "keeping your job" once you reach that cost benefit analysis. I learned a long time ago to squirrel money away for the inevitable lay-off doing what is necessary to keep my job, while working a 40 hour week, for as long I possibly can.
Don't think I'm lazy, I have a strong work ethic and put in 110% for every job I do, even if I hate it (which I currently do). There's simply no point doing something if you're not going to do it right since it just wastes everyones time.
Still, for some perspective, consider this... Each day is 24 hours long.
You will sleep approximatley 8 hours a day, yes you can sleep more or less, but the average is 8 hours.
This leave 16 hours, 8 of which you will be at work. 8 hours of your day now remain.
You'll problaby spend at least half an hour every morning getting ready for work (ie: shower, breakfast, etc..).
You now have 7.50 hours left. Unless you're lukcy to live next door to your workplace, you're going to problaby spend between 2 to 3 hours each day commuting, I'll average it out and say 2.50 hours.
That leaves 5.00 hours. Of course, you need to eat, so you're going to spend about an hour at the grocery store picking up food.
4.00 hours left. You have to cook it then clean up after yourself; while you're at it make lunch for the next day, so let's take another two hours off. Granted, I could buy my lunch and dinner every day and get back those two hours back, which I do sometimes as it isn't as expensive you might expect.
Food costs are normally about 100-150 a week per person, as long as you keep each meal to under 10-15 dollars (20/30 per day) not counting breakfast which can be cheap; the mega box of cereal usually lasts about a week. Overall you'll spend slightly more money (40/60) but get back that two hours each day. The downside is that fast food can lead to unhealthy weight gain so you'll need to be careful in your choices (Hi it's Jared from Subway
You now have a grand total of 2 hours a day remaining (4 if you buy your lunch/dinner) to spend as you wish. Which isn't much (LOTR is approximatly 2 hours 58 minutes) when you think about it. You can get up to two extra hours if you sacrifice on sleep (6 hours a night is the minimum most people need), but that can impact your alertness on the job affecting your overall employability.
With only 2 to 6 hours of free time daily, (with the average being 4) I am extremely reticent to work any overtime that cuts into my "living a life" time without a significant increase in compensation and then only for short periods of extreme necessity.
Pete...
I was going to suggest the same thing with the tables. ;-)
Another thing to think about is being open to taking orders for gaming products. You don't need to keep huge amounts of stock in store (other than Magic cards, kids and adults seem to eat them up), but if you get known as the guy who can get stuff at decent prices it can help with word of mouth and goodwill.
Depending on the size of the place you're using, think seriously about a quiet area with comfy chairs so people can talk and relax between games, or just meet friends there. Also, watch your music slections, too much pounding base or incessant (c)Rap music will alienate your older customers; music is background noise to break the monotony, it shouldn't be too loud that customers have to shout over it.
Also, and I really wish places would start doing this, get lockers. Seriously. If you have gaming tables setup for people to play they will inevitably bring in gym bags full of gaming materials. Then, as a customer, I will spend half my time tripping over bags, jackets and the like. Get lockers, you can charge a couple of bucks for a lock and key that's returned when they leave and they have a place to put their crap in.
Finally, think about putting your store in a place next to a sub shop or pizza place. Not only will you both get cross traffic, but you might be able to work out a deal where they provide catering services for your establishment. Even if they don't, the location means your hungry clients will be tempted to go "next door" rather than go home, making it likley they keep playing when they're done.
Pete...
There's a place in town here (Cambridge Ontario Canada) That does fairly well (open for a year now)
I understand you're trying to be vauge because the place you are talking about probably has a website that you don't want to get Slashdotted (at least I hope that's what it is). Thing is, could you be slightly more specific? I live in Southwestern Ontario and would be interested in checking this place out.
Thanks, Pete...
While I agree that your "all or nothing" idea would undoubtedly make for some interesting involved gameplay, I don't think it would work as well as you'd expect.
;-) ).
I'm sure we've all played the type of games that have the "bosses from hell". Those games where the designer thought it would be oh so fun to put in a boss so insanley hard to beat you simply can't do it *without* dying multiple times. Those games where your "team" keeps attacking and attacking using all type of power ups, health kits, magic spells, ammo enhancers, so on and so forth. Those levels where you throw every possible thing at the "bad guy" (or worse, mutliple "bad guys") who seemingly shrugs off each attack while their decimating attacks whittle you down, eventually killing you and all your team mates. Then to make it even more frustrating, if you do manage to get the bad guy "almost" dead, he uses some spell to drain the life of your team mates, a health kit, or just plain regenerates half his/her life points virtually assuring the near victory will end in complete frustration for the player.
I hate this kind of thing in games as it is and I can reload them over and over. Now I don't know about you, but I don't have much time to invest in a game anymore, life is simply too hectic and busy (took me over a year and half with 100+ hours of gameplay to finish SW:KOTOR) so when I play I want to have fun. If I played a game for twenty minutes let alone ten to twenty hours and had to restart because I lost my team but wasn't allowed to reload because you only got one life, I'd be pissed and stop playing.
In order for this idea to work the game would need to be so dumbed down and easy that each mission would have to be winnable the first time for pretty much everyone. Not that that would be so bad, if the game was short (you don't want to get to hour 50 and have to restart at the beginning) and the story good I could see myself playing it. Hell, it could be a whole new market, easy winnable games with good stories for busy people who don't have 100+ hours to devote to a good RPG (with really crappy boss fights
Pete...
While I would agree with you if you're going for a larger screen, I did find a nice 27 inch http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon =&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10063717&catid=23239 Toshiba High-Def flat panel tube TV at Best-Buy the other day. Sure it was 499.99, but if you're not looking for a large 50+ inch screen and still want to get into Hi-Def since you need to replace the 25/30 incher you have now this would make a nice Hi-Def set to take home.
;-)
I've always found the "until *most* of the content is HD" argument specious at best. I bought my 51" Toshiba Rear Projection (51HX83) set a few years ago simply because of HD. I found that most of the shows in prime-time on all the major networks (usually what Joe Sixpack watches) are in HD and all the cool PBS-HD and Discovery-HD content rounds out the HD conent spectrum enough that I seldom have the need to watch standard def anymore. Sure I pay a bit more on the cable bill for the priveledge of having the HD-PVR, but I didn't spend a few grand to watch Standard Def.
I do agree with you in respect to the players; they need to come down in price. Once they do, I think you'll find more people will get into HD, especially since it's gotten quite cheap and there's quite a bit of programming out there now. Until then I guess I'll have to wait to get Stargate SG-1, Smallville, NCIS, etc... on HD-DVD.
Pete...
I apologize, I didn't mean my comment to appear to come down hard on you. I was trying to illustrate using an extreme analogy the folly of using the phrase "I have nothing to hide" because there *are* some people out there that think people who fight for their privacy rights "probably have something to hide"; with a connotation towards it being a "bad" something.
;-) However you could also be a diabetic checking your blood surgars and because people treat you differently when they find out, you don't really want anyone other than close family and friends knowing about it.
;-)
I agree that they're not functionally equivalent phrases, obviously some people hide "bad" things, most people don't. I do think that for the majority of law abiding citizens they are tied closley together. The whole idea of personal privacy is to keep certain aspects of your life hidden from those you do not wish to share them with.
Like your comment about the bathroom. Yes if you go in and close the door you're probably taking a crap and do I hope you turn on the fan.
I won't even mention all the kinky things you might be doing with your wife after you close the blinds.
Saying that you have *nothing* to hide is likely true in the "legal" sense in respect to the illegal wiretaps. Yet in terms of your private life I'm certain you wouldn't want anyone to listen and take notes while Aunt Irma complains about Uncle Phil's cheating with the lady in accounting again.
I hate "I have nothing to hide" because it can and often does give ammunition to those who seek to do their jobs easier (only terrorists want privacy) by undermining our right to privacy. Everyone has the right to hide aspects of their lives from other people and strong protection of our privacy rights is the only real way of keeping it that way.
Pete...
You have nothing to hide huh?
Would it be okay then if I came over to your house and went through your bookshelf, I'm really curious to see what kinds of books you read. Oh, you read *those* kinds of books huh? But you got nothin' to hide so I guess it won't bother you if I tell all your neighbors about it huh? Woah, what's that over there? No, over there on the coffe table. That's your wife, damn she's hot, you wouldn't mind if I stick around later and watch you guys have sex huh? What, the video camera, well damn man your wife is hot and I gots tons of friends on the internet that would love to get video of you tapping that. Dude, you're phone's ringing it's your Dad, you want me to go? Why, you want some privacy, how come, I thought you had nothing to hide?
I abso-frackin'-lutley hate it when people say they have nothing to hide. EVERYONE has something to hide. Our lives are private and we should have every right to decide who, when and what information we divulge to others as well as expect those that deal with our personal information to keep it just as private.
Pete...
I know how you feel. I'm 32 and recently went through the same thing.
Like your stereotypical geek, when I'm around women I find attractive I tend to get nervous, timid and utterly pathetic. I am simply incapable of talking to them without making myself sound like a complete and total moron. So I don't think it's much of a shock that I haven't dated much, and when I do it's usually well intentioned friends who try to set me up on blind dates that never end well.
That doesn't stop me from looking because once in a long while I will meet a woman whom I find irresistible yet am still able to be completely comfortable and full of confidence around. It really doesn't happen that often (8 times in fifteen years), but when it does it's great. Unfortunately I haven't met one yet that wasn't already in a strong committed relationship. Well that is until I met this girl.
It was just under two years ago when I was 30. I decided to go to this Japanese restaurant I'd read good things about. When I walked in, there she was and almost right away I was taken with her. Since I used to work in a restaurant, I sympathize with what they go through so I tend to be relaxed and friendly with the staff. It paid off, because she spent a lot of time at my table. We got along so well, I decided to go back the next week. Every Thursday over the next few weeks I got to know her better as she spent a fair bit of time at my table. She's very independent and knows what she wants out of life, working two jobs along with studying hard to get it; she's strong willed, highly intelligent, smart, and has real genuine passion towards her interests and learning new ones.
Not only did she appear to be into me, the best part was, not once throughout the entire six weeks (I gave her ample opportunity) I spent getting to know her did she mention a boyfriend. I just simply couldn't believe my luck. My family had wanted to see this girl I'd been raving about, (the food is *very* good there, so it wasn't a stretch to take them in) they all got along extremely well and absolutely adored her.
I had finally worked up the courage and was *this* close to asking her out when she dropped the bomb. You see, the whole time I'd been getting to know her I was certain she was in her early to mid twenties. She was way too mature and together in the head to be anything but. She looked early twenties, she acted early twenties and was mature like early twenties. I was convinced she was early twenties, my family was convinced she was early twenties and while that's normally a bit younger than what I go for, I was convinced it could work and that she was worth the effort.
I never once thought to ask how old she was. Nothing she said or did the whole time I'd spent getting to know her pointed to or could have prepared me for her real age. I'm think she knew the embarrassment it would cause me if I asked her out and she had to turn me down, so she worked it into the conversation and told me how old she was.
17
Not a clue. My family didn't guess, my sister who can spot a fake ID carrying teeny-bopper a 100 yards away (she used to work in a group home, lots of experience) didn't guess. But most importantly I didn't guess and I was devastated. Here was a girl that was utterly perfect for me in just about every way I could think of and she was 13 years my junior. I could have probably pushed for it, I could tell she liked me, but it just wouldn't have been right to press for it. No matter how much I wanted it to happen, I couldn't be that selfish guy who would try to force her into an adult relationship that would deny her her "best years" (I didn't do any fun stuff or grow as a person until my late teens early twenties.).
So I did the only thing I could. I let it go.
I still go there (the food *is* good) but I usually avoid her shift. No sense picking at it needlessly. Although, every once in a while she or I will change our day. We're always happy to see one another and it gives us time to
Who will watch Intel then?
Why... Sony, of course.
While being funny, I think it underscorses a unique point about this proprosal that deserves some thought. It's all fine and dandy to check for rootkits and be big on security. If it was fair and labelled a rootkit as a rootkit, I wouldn't see too much problem with it. In a world of viruses, trojans, spyware/adware, etc... it would be nice to have one less thing to guard against.
But I see this as yet another way to bully the small guy who might be eroding a big corps market share ("Your software hurts us financially, shareholders blah blah blah, we'll throw a bunch of money at Intel and threaten them with out patent portfolio unless they mark it as a rootkit so it won't install."). Then at the same time allowing Sony to pull their rootkit crap and call it a "feature" and since it passed the "Intel Test" you could be sued for defamation of character or some such thing for daring to call a spade a spade.
Pete...
I like your idea, I've certainly seen some fan-films that should have the opportunity to be made into full blown feature films.
The problem is your idea just shows how messed up the state of copyright and it's seemingly endless extensions are. We shouldn't be begging Lucas to "will" the franchise to the public, it should have already been released to the public. If Lucas doesn't do as you suggest, it's more than likley most of us reading this will be dead when it hits the public domain. Assuming of course the cartels don't manage to bri... I mean "successfully lobby" congress to again extend the terms.
There is absolutley no viable reason '*' that Star Wars or everything else I watched, read or listened to as a child 25 years ago to have not hit the public domain by now.
Pete...
'*': No, before you state it, rampant uncontrolled greed is not a viable reason to usurp the public good, just because it happens all the time, doesn't make it right.
Unless the controllers come with a 12 hour play time and 30 second recharge, I honestly think their decision to go with wireless controllers is going to bite Microsoft in the ass.
People want their controllers and games to "just work".
Forgot to plug in your controller last night? You just *know* you're going to run out of power when your in first place on your favourite race game. Or when you're about to capture the flag for your team in the latest shooter.
Use the headset and controller vibration? You'll just drain the batteries even faster.
Sure, it's a nice idea on paper having the controllers wireless. But that first time your controller dies in the middle of your game making you have to wait four to six hours for it to recharge, you're going to wish you bought a Playstation 3.
Pete...
No, Lucas would never allow that. But that's only part of the problem.
I've seen Fan Films on theforce.net that have better stories and more passion than the first two prequels. Films, that given a proper budget, would make for a much more interesting and entertaining film than what we've been given.
The problem isn't Lucas or his inept story telling. The real problem is the 90+ year term of copyrights.
I was born in 1973. Even though the copyright on the original Star Wars will technically end and enter the public domain around 2070 (unless the industry successfully lobbies congress for yet another extension), it might as well be forever since I would never be able to use it. There is a good chance, barring any serious illness or death, that I will die sometime before then.
The original Star Wars came out when I was kid. I can't help but have been influenced by it. I have some ideas I would love to work on. Not just for Star Wars, but other original concepts as well. While I think people would like my ideas, they're ideas I'm afraid to work on. They draw so heavily from the influences of various media in my youth that there would be a good chance I'd be sued for some form of infringement.
We shouldn't need Lucas's permission to tell a story in the Star Wars universe. In a sane world the original Star Wars would have passed into the public domain two years ago. We could then tell the stories ourselves.
Pete...
Yes, I could go to a Library and borrow books, CD's, and movies. That doesn't change the fact most Libraries won't loan you more than 3-4 items at a time; and unless the Library is within walking distance of your house you're still going to have to take a bus or drive. Either way it's going to cost you money.
So for most people TV is the cheap option. For $15 - $25 a month you get access to a number of TV shows, some movies, and a few music programs. The thing is though, for some people
When I'm forced to pay for something I don't want in order to get the things I do want, it kind of pisses me off.
Using your car analogy...
Suppose I want a simple plain Jane car. Something that gets me from point A to point B, has really amazing gas mileage and doesn't cost a whole lot to maintain. Suppose I commute to work each day, and it's 3 hours round trip. Since I'm going to be sitting in traffic for so long, I want comfy leather seats. If that's the way I want it, I can actually buy it that way.
Sure I'll pay extra for the comfy seats. But if that's all I want, I have the option of doing that.
Yet if that same auto-maker was being run by a cable company, I would have to purchase Air-Conditioning, Power Windows and an in dash CD Player before I could get the comfy seats. I don't know about you, but I'd be mighty upset if I had to go to that kind of trouble just to get some comfy seats.
It's counter intuitive to the way it should work. I, as the customer, should only have to purchase what I want.
They could even make it easy, charge me $15.00 a month for basic cable. My local channels, a network affiliate from each of the networks.
From there they could go on to a simple pay scale like this:
01-05 Channels / $2.00 each.
06-10 Channels / $1.50 each.
11-20 Channels / $1.00 each.
21+ Channels / $0.75 each.
All non-premium/ non-movie channels / $30.00 - $35.00
This way I could get my basic cable, Much Music, Much More Music, Discovery, TLC, Space: The Imagination Station, and Family Channel. It would only cost me $24.00/month instead of the $45.00/month that I'm paying now for the same 6 channels.
You could even pick the premium channles without getting any regular channels if you want. Of course it would cost more, but if you picked some of the lower channels you could get percentage discounts.
Perhaps like this:
01-05 Channels / 15% off premium/movie
06-10 Channels / 20% off premium/movie
11-20 Channels / 25% off premium/movie
21+ Channels / 35% off premium/movie
All non-premium/non-movie channels / 50% off premium/movie
Now I could get the Movie Network and assuming it cost $20.00, on top of my six choices above it would be $40.00/month, which is still cheaper than what I currently pay.
Computers would make tracking all this stuff VERY easy so it shouldn't be very hard to implement.
The sad thing is though, they'd rather make us pay $50.00 - $100.00/month for the 100-200 channels we don't watch rather than allow us to pay $24.00 for the six channels we do.
Just some quick background information...
;-)
/* Arnie hanging from a crane driving down the street? Or would this be a rehash of the "Saving ____ Connor from the evil terminator by jumping in front of, on, or shooting at the chase vehicle?" scene? */ followed by a big truck exploding ending with a fight in some factory type of place.
;-)
I remember back when I was a kid, I convinced my parents to sneak me into the Drive In to watch the original Terminator on the big screen. I remember being blown away by the action, the story, and well... okay, I had a school-boy crush on Linda Hamilton.
Of course when T2 came out I hadn't seen the original in years, so I went out and rented it from the local Video Store and checked it out again. Again I rather enjoyed it, and was able to have an even deeper understanding of the films story.
Then I went and saw T2, and I started to feel uneasy. For it was then that I started to realize that the entire film was basically just a rehash of the entire first film.
The structure, plotting, even the scenes are almost completely ripped off from the first movie. From the arrival scene, to the "Finding *insert* Connor.", to the ending sequence where both films ended with a car chase, tanker explosion, and a climactic battle scene in a manufacturing plant with lots of belts and gears and pullies and crap.
It was almost as if Cameron had didn't really bother to come up with anything new. So when I found out that he wasn't doing it I was quite happy. Not because I think his movies suck, but more because I didn't really want to see a rehash of T1 & T2 yet again.
But after watching that trailer, I'm pretty conviced that we're going to see the same film as the first two.
We're going to have a similar arrival experience, although with the Bimbornator it might be interesting. Then we're going to be subjected to a wasteful 20-30 minutes of "Is the Bimbornator bad or good, and just where in the heck is John Connor, and why doesn't he look like Eddie Furlong, anyway?" Despite the fact that all the advertising for the film is going to make it quite obvious that Bimbornator is bad, Arnie is good.
We're going to probably have a the flimsy filler that will attempt to make a story, but will probably follow quite closley to the original plot, "John you are destined to be this great leader, you better make sure you don't die! Oh and by the way, this evil Sky-Net thing you killed in the last movie, it didn't die."
It will most likley end with a cheesy car chase scene,
The sad part though is that the coolest part, the first 15-20 minutes of the movie that takes place in the future, would probably make a more interesting and exciting movie to watch.
But the even sadder part though, I'll probably go and see it. Even though I know it'll probably suck badly, deep down I have this faint hope that they might actually make this film interesting, exciting and worth seeing.
Oh, and one last thing... Did anyone else get the feeling that when the Bimbornator was running through the forest in the red leather outfit; that for just a split second you were watching a trailer for an upcoming episode of Buffy?
You also forgot the recent episode where Dylan and crew end up on the Beleraphon (sp?) fighting the Ogami. The scene where Dylan is helping the Captain repell the invasion, talk about long.
;-)
;-) /* LOL */
The bloody scene lasted almost the entire length between the commercial breaks. Endless shots of Dylan jumping through the air shooting at Ogami, ducking under Ogami fire and taking them out from around corners. The small amount of dialouge that *was* there basically consisted of "Watch Out!", "Thanks for saving my ass!", "Whoah!!! Who's the babe!!!" and other such tripe.
Okay, okay, I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here, but I was starting to fall asleep; pretty explosions can only hold your attention for a short time.
I guess this is what they meant by this season being more 'action' oriented. It's a shame. The show was never "Excellent" but it didn't totally suck either. It had some interesting ideas and the concept had promise if excecuted right.
Yet so far this season, every episode has had some kind of excessive action sequence where Dylan is fighting against a number of bad guys, by himself no less, or with someone who is essentially innefectual; that in the end really served no purpose other than fill time and/or Kevin Sorbo's ego.
As I watch this show I have to wonder just what the hell Sorbo was thinking when he thought that *this* is what people want to see. I agree with the guy above, this show is quickly turing into "Hercules: The Space Journeys".
What's next? Lucy Lawless showing up as "Xendromeda" the evil High Guard warship who, in retaliation for The Fall, Nova Bomed a number of Nietzschean solar systems. Then after a rousing guilt tripping speach from Dylan she suddenly feels oh so guilty about it and devotes her life to making amends for her sins.
Or how about this for a really interesting plot twist. That big old "Scary God of the Magogg" is really good old Ares in disguise.
Imagine if you will a Science presentation on the Solar System. Watching badly edited documentaries from the 1950's, or slides that are so old and grainy they look like ink-blots.
/* You remember those, 80's 8-bit Nintendo VR controller. */ and actually grabs the different molecules and puts them together and then Rotates them so you can see how they're all combined.
Now imagine if they could pop up an image of the Sun that's 10 Feet x 10 Feet in full 3-D. Viewing the properties of Sun-spots up close or watching a prominence burst forth. Then going to a 2/3 view and showing the different layers of the sun and how they all work. Then zoom into the core and show a representation of the fusion process. Or pull out and watch the death of the Sun and how it swallows up the Earth. Then moving on to the other planets. Driving around the Martian surface, or doing the Voyager 1-2 tour. All of it done in stunning 3-D.
Or the Chemistry class where instead of the teacher drawing the various bonds on a chalk board he/she slips on a modified Power-Glove,
What about the Biology class where instead of talking about DNA or looking at it in a book the teacher could put up a floating 3-D replica of it then manipulate it. They could show a heart beating and isolate the various chambers to show what they do. Then zoom out to show the entire circulatory system. Or phase it out and concentrate on the bone structure or nervous system. It would definitely go a ways into appeasing those who are ambivalent towards the dissection experiments.
You could even use it in Art classes to show different sculptures, landscapes, and monuments from around the world.
Or a History class that depicts various moments in history. Imagine watching D-Day in 3-D. Placing you in the action so that you could begin to have an idea of what it might have been like to be there.
Hell, you could even use it in Sex-Ed. Get rid of those incredibly bad 70's movies with dialogue worse than a Blacksploitation flick. You could actually show an egg leaving the ovaries, roll down the fallopian tubes and into the womb. Or show sperm production from scrotum to ejaculation. All the while rotating, and zooming in and out for effect.
This would be an invaluable tool for Secondary Schools. Most kids don't pay attention as it is because the classes are "boring", lots of facts and figures but no real way of putting it together. You either get it, or you don't. But this way you could actually "show" the kids what you're trying to teach them.
Make it fun, make it exciting, or at the very least interesting, and I think you'll start seeing kids understand and care a little more about learning than they did when I was in school.
For $10,000.00 I can't imagine why any school shouldn't have this type of set up.
Most places charge as much as $12.00+ with matinee shows around $10.00!!!! Granted there *are* cheaper venues, but they tend to show older films and/or the seats are so uncomfortable you spend the whole time wishing the movie was over so you can go home and relax.
It's been rumoured some places are going to start charging $13.00+ by the end of this summer.
As the prices are so high, do you want to guess how many movies I've been to see in the last few months? Ummm, let's see. There was "Lord of the Rings" way back in December. Then my sister wanted to see a really bad movie with a hot chick who can marginally sing. The fact that she wears skanky outfits for 1.5 hours had nothing to do with why I was willing to go.
Still in all seriousness, it's got to be a film that I *really* want to see before I'm going to spend that kind of money. Then if I want to take a friend with me, it gets even more stupid.
Forget taking the kids to see a family movie like "Shrek" or "Ice Age" without taking out a small bank-loan first.
Hell even the established "Dinner and a Movie" date becomes prohibitivley expensive once you consider that you're probably going to spend about $30.00-$50.00 on top of the $46.00 you've already spent.
As it is I'll probably only see 3 films this summer. "Spiderman", "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones", and "Blade II".
I'd watch more, but let's face it, $12.00 is insane.
Petey Pete...
Right now, it costs an insane ammount of money to launch a spacecraft. As I'm sure you all know, the more it weighs, the more it costs. Some sattelites can cost upwards of $100 Million or more to launch. I read somewhere that almost *all* of the costs asociated with SpaceFlight is attributed to getting the stuff of the ground in the first place.
;-) Not to mention that any metalwork that you do would be *perfect*, or darned near close to it, since you're doing it in zero-g. When it reforms, it would be uniform. Yes, I know that all things melted would turn into spheres in space. So, you melt it once, let it cool, and then heat it up enough to make it pliable.
So it's really mind boggling that they want to destroy all this so-called *junk*.
How may of the these so called "non-functioning" sattelites have functional, or close to functional rocket motors? How about fuel tanks that weren't all the way depleted. Or solar panels, or computer chips. Granted, some of the technology is outdated, okay most of it is outdated. But still, it's already *there*. No expensive launches, no planning, nothing. Need a solar panel, grab it off that sattelite over there, need a new hull, rip a section off that one over there. Wanna hook a rocket motor to it, grab it from there. Hey look, that sattelite still has some fuel left, grab it's fuel tank.
Need to do any welding, metal work, just use the sun. It's already 350+ degrees in the sun, just imagine how hot it would be if you amplified it. Gives burning ants in the sun with a magnifying glass a whole new meaning.
There's plenty of computer equipment out there to use in whatever it is that you build. Want to send a mission to the moon, you could do it for FAR cheaper by recycling what is already there, than to build it on the ground and ship it up.
Just imagine how fast and cheap they could build a space station, deep space probes, lunar mining equipment, orbital maneuvering vehicles, etc.. NASA is always going on about being smaller, faster, cheaper. Well you don't get any cheaper than almost free. Besides, aren't they always talking about the three R's. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Perhaps they should start listening to what they've been preaching.
Pete...