On second thought, keep on watching. Watch to your heart's content. The bike paths are already crowded enough, and I shudder to imagine what some of your kind would talk about around the water cooler if it weren't for "Survivor".
What nobody seems to realize is that the world needs mindless drones--lots and lots of mindless drones. I don't want a deluge of sensible, enlightened, productive non-TV watchers. For one, it'll wreak havoc with my sense of superiority. What's more, it'll mean that I'll face stiffer competition both in the workplace and in my pastimes as more and more people wake up and become thoughtful, productive individuals. What, you think I want more competition for that promotion?
If you stop watching TV, you won't be able to roll your eyes at me and my freakish, elitist, hippie lifestyle. Similarly, I'll be unable to fire off snide insults about your sedentary, mindless lifestyle. Why ruin the fun for both of us?
I encourage you to watch as much TV as you want, and to share that time in front of the tube with your children, as well. You'll be happier, I'll be happier, and everything will work out wonderfully.
Theantix, I do understand what you're saying. Do you understand that all I'm taking issue with is the assertion that this price balancing makes today's movie tickets a good deal. To be fair, it's a subjective call, but I'm not misunderstanding you at all.
On the topic of exactly who is doing the fleecing--does it really matter that much to the consumer which link in the chain is fleecing them?
As to the costs of maintaining those huge cineplexes, they must outstrip the income they get, because they're in worse shape than they used to be. Between cell phones, half-assed maintenance, and ticket price hikes that reliably outstrip inflation, it's not all that fun to go to the movies anymore.
Finally, the local theater barely exists anymore. Most of them are Loews, AMC, Regal, Carmike--big, national chains with only nominal interest in the locales they're in. They effectively swallowed up the local places in a wave of buy-outs and price wars several years back...
No, it's not a good deal for everyone. It's a better deal than $11 tickets would be, certainly. But by no stretch of the imagination is an $8.50 ticket a good deal. We're still getting fleeced.
Would $6 for a 16-ounce latte be a good deal if a shot of syrup cost $3? After all, they could be charging $7.50 for the latte and $1.50 for the syrup...or would you rather pay $3.00 for a latte? ($3 is still quite inflated, but c'est la vie...)
True enough, but that doesn't really change the situation. Real still has a hole to climb out of, and they'll still likely look 'ugly' to Jobs.
On the point of Real and niches...
Real once owned this niche. There was a time when anything that streamed was Real, and most video and audio clips on the web were Real encoded. They ruled the roost, and they were well-poised to maintain said position. Instead of capitalizing on this and continuing heavy-duty R&D, they shifted to an advertising-oriented revenue stream and did as much as they could to milk their (very solid) userbase dry. They leaned hard on their market dominance and released truly substandard, ad-infested software for several years. Eventually, bigger players entered the fray--Apple and Microsoft--and managed to produce formats and players that performed significantly better than Real's offering. Had Real maintained a strong focus on R&D and the technical end of things, they'd still have a loyal following and a competitive product. Instead, they decided to cash in--which cost them customer loyalty. Nobody loves Real anymore. It is, at best, accepted as the status quo in some organizations. They blew their wad to get a quick buck; now the well is running dry, and they're scampering for an easy fix. No tears for Real from me.
The point is, the cost of the ticket is actually a good deal
$18 for the wife and I to see "Funny Guy 3: Pratfalls and Flatulence" at the local Chaineplex is decidedly not a good deal.
We go to about two full-price movies a year, if that. Why bother, when the DVD will be out at Costco for $20 in a matter of months? Why bother, when the movie will be showing for $2.50 per person at the second-run theatre in a matter of weeks?
Say I'm a movie theater owner. My projectionist sees a guy in the seventh row who has a camcorder sitting on an armrest. Is it really my job to determine whether he's just a tourist protecting his property or a guy taping the movie when policy explicity forbids having any recording devices in the theater?
I'd either ask you to leave (if you politely explained that you were just a tourist and not recording the camera, I may even refund your ticket,) or call the cops and let you explain to them that you had perfectly good reasons for planting your camcorder on your armrest in the movie theater.
Got a camcorder on your person that you can't part with? You're not gonna be able to see a movie, sorry.
Real's got a bit of a hole to climb out of on this one. Why? Because they're notorious for their abusive, invasive, and all-around unpleasant media players. This matters because Steve, for better or for worse, is extremely nitpicky about presentation and image. Real has historically failed in the arenas of user-friendliness, interface elegance, and ease-of-use. True, they're making a strong effort to pull out of that, but they've still got a ways to go.
Compare Real... The free player, while no longer buried as deep as it used to be, is still behind a text link in a grey box next to the big, shiny Premium Download button. Upon download, you're innundated with a page featuring "Real Accessories", which are little more than sponsored links to unrelated software.
...to Apple: From the Apple.com homepage, it's three clicks to the download page. Each click is non-misleading and about as obvious as you can make it (click the "iTunes and Music tab", click the big graphic in the middle of the page labelled "Download Now", select your version, and boom. You're downloading.) The confirmation page displays, among other things, the phrase "Thank You" in big, bold letters at the top of the screen. It, too, has its plugs, but they're for the iTunes Music Store and the iPod--far more relevant than the "TweakMASTER Pro", "FreeMem Pro", and "System Mechanic" software offered at Real. The layout is straightforward, doesn't try to shunt you to a more expensive alternative, and is cleaner-looking and easier to follow than the Real site.
Real is going to have a tough time of convincing Jobs that Apple really wants to associate with them...
Traffic laws are meant to be broken. Want proof? Look at how many times local law enforcement gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, changing speed limits, moving stop signs, and in general, making traffic laws become a big fat cash cow instead of a safety precaution.
Then be a renegade! Buck the system! Fight The Man! Follow every single traffic law. That'll really stick it to em!
Won't their faces be red when they see an army of cars observing posted speed limits and following traffic laws! I can just see them now, huddled in their secret subterrainean command center, cursing and waving their fists as car after car proceeds down the street in an orderly, safe, courteous manner!
Take that, federal, state and local government! Muah-ha-hah!
(And, of course, in each case, the insurance companies would place "at fault" the person in rear for failing to notice the without-warning red light immediately and stop immediately, or for failing to predict the person in front of them might come to a stop without warning...)
Why are they following so close in the first place? When is it 'okay' for a person driving a 2000-pound vehicle to not immediately notice a sudden change in traffic conditions? How would the above scenario be any different than rear-ending someone who screeches to a halt to avoid hitting a dog?
Try following at a safe distance instead. Yes, you'll miss the occasional green light, and yes, aggressive jerks will dart in front of you. On the other hand, you'll have plenty of time to stop your car should traffic conditions change suddenly, and driving becomes much easier and less harrowing when you're not pouncing on the brake in a panic every time the guy in front of you comes to a sudden stop.
Every now and then I look at the car in front of me and envision what would happen if that car were to suddenly hit the Jersey wall or have a head-on collision with oncoming traffic. Try it--it's a great way to get in the habit of following at a safe distance.
Does stopping speeders before others serve a purpose other than petty revenge?
Well, y'know, there's that whole enforcement of the law thing. Unless that falls under 'petty revenge' in your book. One might also imagine that it'd be effective in encouraging the typical driver to actually obey posted speed limits (though I can't speak for the asshats who'll take it upon themselves to try and 'beat the system' by speeding faster or running the light.)
Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?
Oh, heaven forfend that drivers be expected to pay attention to the road and traffic signals, especially so when they're in a hurry and thus simply have no choice but to violate traffic laws! Gee, officer, I just wasn't expecting that kid to cross the road--and I was in a hurry, so you can hardly blame me for it!
Just because it's easy to get away with speeding doesn't mean it's legal. Just because you're busy, late, or otherwise incapable of managing your life and time in a reasonable fashion doesn't mean that it's somehow more okay for you to speed than somebody who speeds for the hell of it. The fact that you can manufacture any number of scenarios detailing How This Can Go Wrong doesn't change the fact that the person triggering the system is violating traffic laws in the first place. Try following traffic laws. Seriously. You'd be amazed at how well the universe keeps from collapsing on itself when one follows the speed limit, signals lane changes, and maintains adequate braking distance.
On a side note, these aren't all that new--they have 'em in Alexandria, VA, and Bethesda has something similar (warning lights flash at you if you're going too fast.)
Record thirty minutes' worth of an industrial-strength air conditioning unit from five feet away. Use a unidirectional microphone.
Purchase/download a copy of "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". Chop it up into ten-second segments, chain them together starting with the last and ending with the first, and reverse the entire file.
Overlay the two audio loops and decrease their speed by a factor of eight. This should leave you with a low-pitched rumble.
Loop this clip so that it will fill an entire CD to the last bit.
IMPORTANT:Toggle every bit that corresponds with a number in the Fibonacci sequence (i.e. if the fifth bit on the track is a '1', make it a '0'.)
Burn this track to a CD.
Get ready for bed.
Put on a pair of headphones (use a noise-cancelling pair with gold-plated cables for best effect) and start playing the CD.
EXACTLY TEN SECONDS into the track, think very hard about the subliminal message you want to convey to yourself.
No, they probably do see it as a tool, but a tool that they need to keep a close eye on.
Their logic probably goes something like this: so long as we can keep making people feel guilty/nervous about filesharing, we'll be able to keep P2P as a promotional tool while minimizing the risk of it taking over as the best way to get music.
They'd never say this outright, of course, as it'd undermine their PR campaign against P2P. But so long as they keep P2P flooded with crap and pursue the occasional lawsuit, they'll be able to reap the benefit of filesharing without having it grow into a serious replacement for their distribution models.
They're not idiots, they're cutthroat businessmen. They care about lots of things, but in the end, making money trumps all other concerns.
For my wife and I, high-speed Internet access is half the price of cable TV. We can get news and weather in an instant with my Internet connection. The only compelling reason we have for getting cable is Comedy Central, and while I miss South Park and The Daily Show, they sure as hell ain't worth over $50 a month.
We still watch good ol' broadcast TV every now and then, and we still have favorite shows, but we really don't watch much TV, simply because TV has been replaced by the Internet for instant-access news, information, and interactive entertainment. Cable just isn't worth it anymore.
One (1) pair binoculars
One (1) pair night-vision goggles
One (1) Field emergency medical kit
One (1) M-4 rifle
Eighty (80) rounds 5.56 x 45mm NATO ammuniton
Ten (10) Meals Ready-to-eat
One (1) Mosquito micro-UAV
Ten (10) 30mm propulsion-grade rubber bands
not so, a lot of people on a LOT of mac websites thought it was a mistake. The running argument was for 50 dollars more you can get a 10 gig.
Again, you're looking at a pretty small cross-section of the consumer audience--people who frequent/run geek tech sites. (The audience at Mac news sites, after all, is not that different demographically from Slashdot--primarily comprised of tech-oriented, male geeks.) While the tech-oriented crowd was indeed screaming about the cost to capacity ratio, plenty of people were swooning over it's compact form factor, it's styling, even the freakin' colors! The iPod mini was never meant to appeal to case-modders and DIY geeks. The iPod mini was designed to appeal to the same crowd that buys ultra-compact, color-screen, flip-lid camera phones. Apple knew that this was a big market from the start, as did a lot of other people.
The tech-geek conventional wisdom was blindsided by the iPod's success because the tech-geek conventional wisdom failed to understand that other people buy digital gadgets, too!
Given that there where 100,000 pre-orders alone, does this mean that yet again Apple hit on a niche that no one else (including me) thought would sell...So much for the idea a $249 4-gig iPod was a mistake.
Dude, lots of people thought it was a good idea. True, the majority of people on Slashdot thought it was a bad idea, but Slashdot is hardly representative of everybody.
Way to spin the issue, though--it wasn't a sound business decision built from careful research and experience, it was Yet Another Example of (beleaguered) Apple somehow succeeding with a dubious product...
Broken link
on
Free Culture
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Average time from start to finish to get a new drug from molecule to FDA approval is 15 years.
You say this like it's a bad thing. It's because of the FDA's rigorous testing process that America didn't have several thousand Thalidomide babies along with the rest of the world. On the other side of the coin, we've had a steady stream of scares, scandals and deaths from the largely unregulated herbal/dietary suppliment industry in recent years.
Do you really want to be taking a drug that causes permanent hearing loss in 7% of patients, results in a six-fold increase in your chance of having a heart attack, or causes degenerative nerve damage after eighteen months' worth of use? Because if the FDA didn't test drugs thoroughly enough, that's the kind of risk you could be exposed to every time you took a new drug.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, if you hear a rasping or scraping sound, the inmate may be trying to dig his way to freedom...
On second thought, keep on watching. Watch to your heart's content. The bike paths are already crowded enough, and I shudder to imagine what some of your kind would talk about around the water cooler if it weren't for "Survivor".
What nobody seems to realize is that the world needs mindless drones--lots and lots of mindless drones. I don't want a deluge of sensible, enlightened, productive non-TV watchers. For one, it'll wreak havoc with my sense of superiority. What's more, it'll mean that I'll face stiffer competition both in the workplace and in my pastimes as more and more people wake up and become thoughtful, productive individuals. What, you think I want more competition for that promotion?
If you stop watching TV, you won't be able to roll your eyes at me and my freakish, elitist, hippie lifestyle. Similarly, I'll be unable to fire off snide insults about your sedentary, mindless lifestyle. Why ruin the fun for both of us?
I encourage you to watch as much TV as you want, and to share that time in front of the tube with your children, as well. You'll be happier, I'll be happier, and everything will work out wonderfully.
Hugs 'n' kisses, AAiP
(hint: tongu_ in ch__k. Buy a vowel...)
On the topic of exactly who is doing the fleecing--does it really matter that much to the consumer which link in the chain is fleecing them?
As to the costs of maintaining those huge cineplexes, they must outstrip the income they get, because they're in worse shape than they used to be. Between cell phones, half-assed maintenance, and ticket price hikes that reliably outstrip inflation, it's not all that fun to go to the movies anymore.
Finally, the local theater barely exists anymore. Most of them are Loews, AMC, Regal, Carmike--big, national chains with only nominal interest in the locales they're in. They effectively swallowed up the local places in a wave of buy-outs and price wars several years back...
Would $6 for a 16-ounce latte be a good deal if a shot of syrup cost $3? After all, they could be charging $7.50 for the latte and $1.50 for the syrup...or would you rather pay $3.00 for a latte? ($3 is still quite inflated, but c'est la vie...)
On the point of Real and niches...
Real once owned this niche. There was a time when anything that streamed was Real, and most video and audio clips on the web were Real encoded. They ruled the roost, and they were well-poised to maintain said position. Instead of capitalizing on this and continuing heavy-duty R&D, they shifted to an advertising-oriented revenue stream and did as much as they could to milk their (very solid) userbase dry. They leaned hard on their market dominance and released truly substandard, ad-infested software for several years. Eventually, bigger players entered the fray--Apple and Microsoft--and managed to produce formats and players that performed significantly better than Real's offering. Had Real maintained a strong focus on R&D and the technical end of things, they'd still have a loyal following and a competitive product. Instead, they decided to cash in--which cost them customer loyalty. Nobody loves Real anymore. It is, at best, accepted as the status quo in some organizations. They blew their wad to get a quick buck; now the well is running dry, and they're scampering for an easy fix. No tears for Real from me.
$18 for the wife and I to see "Funny Guy 3: Pratfalls and Flatulence" at the local Chaineplex is decidedly not a good deal.
We go to about two full-price movies a year, if that. Why bother, when the DVD will be out at Costco for $20 in a matter of months? Why bother, when the movie will be showing for $2.50 per person at the second-run theatre in a matter of weeks?
I'd either ask you to leave (if you politely explained that you were just a tourist and not recording the camera, I may even refund your ticket,) or call the cops and let you explain to them that you had perfectly good reasons for planting your camcorder on your armrest in the movie theater.
Got a camcorder on your person that you can't part with? You're not gonna be able to see a movie, sorry.
Compare Real... The free player, while no longer buried as deep as it used to be, is still behind a text link in a grey box next to the big, shiny Premium Download button. Upon download, you're innundated with a page featuring "Real Accessories", which are little more than sponsored links to unrelated software.
Real is going to have a tough time of convincing Jobs that Apple really wants to associate with them...
From this day forward, I shall refer to Jack Valenti as "Motion Picture Ass Head". Thank you, sam0ht.
Gah! No capes! That's like a street-racing game with no oversized wings and Type-R windscreen decals, or a shmup without a spread cannon!
No capes! Gah!
Then be a renegade! Buck the system! Fight The Man! Follow every single traffic law. That'll really stick it to em!
Won't their faces be red when they see an army of cars observing posted speed limits and following traffic laws! I can just see them now, huddled in their secret subterrainean command center, cursing and waving their fists as car after car proceeds down the street in an orderly, safe, courteous manner!
Take that, federal, state and local government! Muah-ha-hah!
Why are they following so close in the first place? When is it 'okay' for a person driving a 2000-pound vehicle to not immediately notice a sudden change in traffic conditions? How would the above scenario be any different than rear-ending someone who screeches to a halt to avoid hitting a dog?
Try following at a safe distance instead. Yes, you'll miss the occasional green light, and yes, aggressive jerks will dart in front of you. On the other hand, you'll have plenty of time to stop your car should traffic conditions change suddenly, and driving becomes much easier and less harrowing when you're not pouncing on the brake in a panic every time the guy in front of you comes to a sudden stop.
Every now and then I look at the car in front of me and envision what would happen if that car were to suddenly hit the Jersey wall or have a head-on collision with oncoming traffic. Try it--it's a great way to get in the habit of following at a safe distance.
Well, y'know, there's that whole enforcement of the law thing. Unless that falls under 'petty revenge' in your book. One might also imagine that it'd be effective in encouraging the typical driver to actually obey posted speed limits (though I can't speak for the asshats who'll take it upon themselves to try and 'beat the system' by speeding faster or running the light.)
Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?
Oh, heaven forfend that drivers be expected to pay attention to the road and traffic signals, especially so when they're in a hurry and thus simply have no choice but to violate traffic laws! Gee, officer, I just wasn't expecting that kid to cross the road--and I was in a hurry, so you can hardly blame me for it!
Just because it's easy to get away with speeding doesn't mean it's legal. Just because you're busy, late, or otherwise incapable of managing your life and time in a reasonable fashion doesn't mean that it's somehow more okay for you to speed than somebody who speeds for the hell of it. The fact that you can manufacture any number of scenarios detailing How This Can Go Wrong doesn't change the fact that the person triggering the system is violating traffic laws in the first place. Try following traffic laws. Seriously. You'd be amazed at how well the universe keeps from collapsing on itself when one follows the speed limit, signals lane changes, and maintains adequate braking distance.
On a side note, these aren't all that new--they have 'em in Alexandria, VA, and Bethesda has something similar (warning lights flash at you if you're going too fast.)
It's hard enough fitting a hamster into an empty 5.25 drive bay, after all...
(Call me before they go gold with the omega release, though...)
Behold, the power of suggestion.
Haven't read the review yet, but I assume it's got something to do with early attempts at teledildonics...
Their logic probably goes something like this: so long as we can keep making people feel guilty/nervous about filesharing, we'll be able to keep P2P as a promotional tool while minimizing the risk of it taking over as the best way to get music.
They'd never say this outright, of course, as it'd undermine their PR campaign against P2P. But so long as they keep P2P flooded with crap and pursue the occasional lawsuit, they'll be able to reap the benefit of filesharing without having it grow into a serious replacement for their distribution models.
They're not idiots, they're cutthroat businessmen. They care about lots of things, but in the end, making money trumps all other concerns.
We still watch good ol' broadcast TV every now and then, and we still have favorite shows, but we really don't watch much TV, simply because TV has been replaced by the Internet for instant-access news, information, and interactive entertainment. Cable just isn't worth it anymore.
One (1) pair binoculars
One (1) pair night-vision goggles
One (1) Field emergency medical kit
One (1) M-4 rifle
Eighty (80) rounds 5.56 x 45mm NATO ammuniton
Ten (10) Meals Ready-to-eat
One (1) Mosquito micro-UAV
Ten (10) 30mm propulsion-grade rubber bands
*snerk* Yeah, Apple sure has suffered lately under their boneheaded, non-visionary leadership.
Hell, if they get any worse, their competitors are going to have to start going out of business just to keep from humiliating Apple...
Again, you're looking at a pretty small cross-section of the consumer audience--people who frequent/run geek tech sites. (The audience at Mac news sites, after all, is not that different demographically from Slashdot--primarily comprised of tech-oriented, male geeks.) While the tech-oriented crowd was indeed screaming about the cost to capacity ratio, plenty of people were swooning over it's compact form factor, it's styling, even the freakin' colors! The iPod mini was never meant to appeal to case-modders and DIY geeks. The iPod mini was designed to appeal to the same crowd that buys ultra-compact, color-screen, flip-lid camera phones. Apple knew that this was a big market from the start, as did a lot of other people.
The tech-geek conventional wisdom was blindsided by the iPod's success because the tech-geek conventional wisdom failed to understand that other people buy digital gadgets, too!
Dude, lots of people thought it was a good idea. True, the majority of people on Slashdot thought it was a bad idea, but Slashdot is hardly representative of everybody.
Way to spin the issue, though--it wasn't a sound business decision built from careful research and experience, it was Yet Another Example of (beleaguered) Apple somehow succeeding with a dubious product...
Here's a working link to the Mitchell courthouse, sans magical Slashdot link space...
You say this like it's a bad thing. It's because of the FDA's rigorous testing process that America didn't have several thousand Thalidomide babies along with the rest of the world. On the other side of the coin, we've had a steady stream of scares, scandals and deaths from the largely unregulated herbal/dietary suppliment industry in recent years.
Do you really want to be taking a drug that causes permanent hearing loss in 7% of patients, results in a six-fold increase in your chance of having a heart attack, or causes degenerative nerve damage after eighteen months' worth of use? Because if the FDA didn't test drugs thoroughly enough, that's the kind of risk you could be exposed to every time you took a new drug.