I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that Lucas has completely fumbled this franchise.
Then I must not be considered part of "a lot of people." You don't speak for me. Then again, I understand that the films are meant to be fun and enjoyed purely on that level alone. Apparently some of you are looking for a life-changing experience. Tell you what--go read a Shirley Maclaine book and leave the rest of us the fuck alone, okay?
Hopefully Tarantino won't suffer this fate.
When Quentin "steal every David Lynch idea I can get my hands on" Tarantino does anything that's remotely as enjoyable and inspired as Star Wars, then get back to us.
I have no idea how to react to this. I'm stunned. I've known about the existence of Destino for a long time now, and have found stills from it published in various places, but I never dreamed that I'd actually get the chance to see it. I am rabidly fanatical about Dali's work, his life, his artisitc philosophy (the "paranoiac-critical" method he used to create his imagery.) I know a lot of artists and art historians (in academic settings particularly) view Dali and his work with disdain, but it's foolish to ignore the impact his work has had. Andre Breton is often (and rightly) credited with starting the surrealist movement, but it was Dali who took it and ran with it and expressed it in ways that nobody else could imagine. If not for Dali, IMO, surrealism would have been a momentary artistic curiosity and not much else. Dali made it what it is, so let me repeat what he boldly and correctly announced to Time magazine:
I AM SURREALISM.
As usual, he was right.
And my favorite quote of his (also my email sig):
The only difference between me
and a madman is that I am not mad.
There's a real problem here. The same arguments that have been used in the past in favor of a buyer's right to resell the CD (i.e., that you own the media and can legally resell it) probably doesn't apply; in fact, that argument, as I've heard it, works against this. You never own the rights to the music you pay for, but rather the medium upon which it has been written. This explains why you are allowed to resell a CD. By law (and I'm not expert--this is what I understand) you own the physical media upon which the material (the rights to which you don't own) is placed. This allows you to resell the CD. In the case of downloads, there is no physical media per se. The situation has changed significantly. Unfortunately, as I understand the law in this matter, one cannot resell a downnload unless the laws are rewritten to include bits and bytes as physical media a la CDs, tapes and records. I kinda doubt that's going to happen. And frankly, I'm not sure it should.
In the news media, the term "news" is defined as anything that happens that's out of the ordinary (which is why it's funny to watch liberals and conservatives carp about how their weekly pro-/anti-Bush rally wasn't covered, but the two guys standing out on the corner with a dissenting point of view got interviewed.) Literally, this is not even news, as news is defined. It's becoming rather commonplace which is just sad.
Longhorn will be to previous versions of windows what Windows 95 was back in the day - a radical change. Old apps will be supported, but only in compatibility mode (like 16-bit win. 3.11 apps are supported in windows right now). All the new APIs will be managed which means fast, secure and componentized. There will be new security model. There will be new UI library very different from what you can use now, and, again managed. GDI will only be supported in compatibility mode - graphics engine will change as well. This coupled with a shitload of other technologies will make it a worthy target for developers and businesses.
Your site won me over when you were the first and only site to announce unequivocably that iTools would become the $99/yr..Mac service. Everyone posting at every other Mac forum decried it as impossible or unlikely or just plain wrong; it's funny to think back to all the explanations and discussions of why it simply could not happen, never, ever, end of story and how Apple would lose customers and go out of business and it would be the end of civilization as we know it so that rumor could not be right. Even I thought you guys had gone off the deep end.
And you know that's wrong because...? What do your sources say? Did Think Secret announce a release date for iWorks or did they simply report that it was being worked on?
Slashdot posting vaporware news from an unreliable (Thinksecret et al) source?
I take it you don't look at Think Secret on a regular basis. It is, easily, the most accurate Mac rumors site out there. In fact, they have posted info on numerous occasions that has caught the attention of Apple's lawyers, and have been forced to pull down and issue their standard disclaimer. Say what you will about other rumors sites (most of them simply feed off each other) but there are some startlingly reliable sources informing Think Secret. Frankly, I don't recall the last time they were wrong about anything they've posted.
I'm not trolling. I'm serious. Who really gives a rip about all this?
Yes, it's very observant at this point to notice yet again that this kind of thing is primarily a marketing move... yadda yadda... but what does it matter? The reason I stick with my Mac is that, even at half the speed of a PC, I'm more productive than with Windows. It's mostly because of the care and thought that goes into the interface and the way you can interact with the machine. There's a lot to that. For example, my boss (a PC user) is constantly blown away by the consistent implementation of drag-and-drop on the Mac desktop, along with the concept of text clippings. From what I've seen Windows is still struggling to catch up with where the Mac was way back in System 7.
That's one example, but it's simple, well thought out stuff like that that keeps me on a Mac. I'm not interested in the whole Computing Speed Circle Jerk and I wonder why it matters so much that people get into these divisive arguments about the validity of SPEC numbers and all. Who cares?
Is it any surprise at all that an MS-backed search engine would yield dubious results? Maybe someone with the technical expertise could start an open source search engine project to offer people an alternative to yet another attempt by the Redmond Giant Octopus to grow another tentacle. Is there such a project already? If not, why not? Who wouldn't love to see a search site completely devoid of commercial content and "paid links" and whatnot?
I'm sure everyone here can sympathize with companies and individuals who are hurt by piracy and I feel that they have every right to pursue it in whatever way they legally can. But that's the problem. As soon as a company uses illegal or unethical methods to combat illegal and unethical abuse, they lose me as well as the moral upper-hand. There are plenty of ways to combat piracy without invading a customer's privacy and I think it behooves a company or developer to explore those avenues. Also, they need to accept that there is always going to be a segment of users who will use pirated software. And I'm not so sure that matters. I would assume that most people doing so wouldn't have paid for the software legitimately anyway, no matter what, so it's hard to say that any potential profit has been lost by anyone. Tactics like "phoning home" and convoluted registration methods, dongles and other nuissaances only irritate paying customers and likely don't stop any piracy at all.
For any supposedly educated person to say something asinine like "We want a single platform" only proves how ill-informed some of the people making these decisions are. Why would a single platform be a requirement? Do they get all their school supplies from one vendor as well? What's the benefit?
This attitude is also strikingly shortsighted. I mean, does the guy pick up a newspaper at some point in his day? If so, how could he possibly not be aware of recent (and not-so-recent) events pertaining to virus infections and security issues as well as some of the licensing fiascos that MS has foisted on its users. It would seem to me that a diversity of platforms would be in order to avoid the inherent traps in computing monoculture. It appears that some administrative types think "diversity" in computing means Windows 98, NT, 2K and XP.
It's funny...one of the supposed points in favor of Macs over PCs is that since Apple controls the hardware and the software, the system will work better. Yet that is twice now Apple has had to be sued to actually make it work.
Being sued twice in 20+ years for failing to live up to what is likely poorly directed marketing hype causes you to call into question the wisdom of Apple controlling the hardware and the software to achieve better system operation? The fact that users have one company to sue when their claims are lacking is, in itself, an advantage to the consumer. Who do you turn to when such claims don't work on the Wintel platform? (Not that that's ever happened, right... ahem?)
I'm a Mac user, have been for years and will continue to be so, but I am always happy to hear Linux gaining ground whether it's on the desktop or server market. The success of any platform other than Windows is, IMO, something to feel good about. I hope Linux makes in-roads into the desktop market some way or another. I'm not sure if incompatibility with Windows networks is really a valid strike against Linux or not. Seems to me that anything not coming from Redmond has trouble working in a Windows environment.
The problem with the cube at the time of its release is the same problem it has now: it's neither-nor. I don't think upgraded cubes will interest anyone, but I wish the folks doing it the best of luck. The cube's problem was that it stradled the gray area between consumer and pro machine. It's not a consumer machine because it's pricey and doesn't come with a monitor. It's not a pro machine because, while it used top-of-the-line components when it came out, it wasn't expandable enough to make pros happy. So it's a niche product within a niche market. I remember seeing an article about how Oprah Winfrey had bought a cube and loved it, and thinking "that's who they will be selling to--wealthy people who like the looks of the machine and don't care if they have to buy a monitor along with it." There are only so many people out there fitting that profile to sell these things to.
BTW, I'm a Mac user and I thought the cube was a great looking machine so no flames for this, thankyouverymuch.
2nd December, 1976: Hipgnosis photo shoot for "Animals" at Battersea Power Station in London. An inflatable pig breaks free and (depending on which story you believe) is shot down by a marksman or eventually comes to earth in a field in Kent.
I have to wonder if Apple isn't trying to maneuver MS into a position of having to maintain their Office suite for Mac OS X. We just witnessed a five-year span where a standoff (or "agreement") between the two companies ensured continued Office for OS X development, thereby staving off a lawsuit by Apple against MS. I wonder if Apple reinstating their patent on fast-user switching isn't a way to position MS into another similar agreement. Who knows? Curious move on Apple's part.
D.C. has the highest per-capita expenditure on public education [...] you'll see that there is little to no correlation between what people invest and what they get.
You're extrapolating from one situation that may have its own unique problems.
Your obviously trolling
Why? Because I disagree, I'm a troll?
public education is a joke of interfering laws, red tape, misspending, and parental apathy.
I agree. I'm a parent myself and see it, but how does cutting funding fix all that? You're throwing in different problems to attempt justification of cutting school funding. That doesn't make any sense. You can fix those problems without choking a school's funds.
In oak ridge, an overwhelming majority of parents care about their kids education and as a result, the children thrive.
I don't disagree that there is a connection between parental involvement and student success, but don't ignore the link between that and money. The reality is that parents can't always be involved with their child's education due to jobs (sometimes several if it's a single parent or works for minimum wage) or other concerns that make it impossible to be involved. Again, cutting funding to schools doesn't help parents get more involved. In fact, schools turn to parents in many of these cases to help out. Many parents are already strapped for time and money. In the situation you cited, I would compare income levels of families around the schools. Poor areas will inevitably have less parent participation and therefore worse student results. Cutting funding solves nothing.
In summation, (money != success) && (parental interest == success)
I agree, but then I made no claims to the contrary in my previous post. I'm not sure why you're using that to justify under-funding schools.
We continue to throw money at education and have no results.
Really? What are you sources for that information? Over the last decade or so, we have done nothing of the sort. This "throwing money at education" is a right-wing myth that has been successfully used by a greedy, short-sighted segment of the population to hang on to a few extra pennies. Walk into your local schools and tell me if it looks like a place that has had money "thrown" at it. You're buying into a lie. And even if you can cite examples of school funding being increased, you will still have a very difficult time explaining why that increase is so meager when compared to other areas of government funding or when compared to the growth in the school's numbers.
Let's be clear: we Americans have NEVER "thrown money" at schools unless you somehow define "throwing money" as a pittance. Schools have never suffered from being over-funded. Not even close. It feels better, I suppose, to rant about a perceived problem and get a few extra bucks back in your pocket with a tax cut than to actually look into what may be causing the problem and accept that it costs a certain amount of money to educate your country's youth.
True, but what were we angry with MS about? Oh yeah, bundling IE. How's that Safari handling for you?
If you don't see the differences between Apple's bundling of Safari and MS's bundling of IE, then there's really no point in me explaining it to you.
Have you successfully been able to remove Quicktime from OS X? It's *BOLTED* onto OS X.. impossible to remove.
A quick drag to the trash would do it. I know that's not a very thorough response, but then, your claim that QT is "bolted" onto OS X was about as thorough.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I must not be considered part of "a lot of people." You don't speak for me. Then again, I understand that the films are meant to be fun and enjoyed purely on that level alone. Apparently some of you are looking for a life-changing experience. Tell you what--go read a Shirley Maclaine book and leave the rest of us the fuck alone, okay?
Hopefully Tarantino won't suffer this fate.
When Quentin "steal every David Lynch idea I can get my hands on" Tarantino does anything that's remotely as enjoyable and inspired as Star Wars, then get back to us.
I AM SURREALISM.
As usual, he was right.
And my favorite quote of his (also my email sig):
The only difference between me
and a madman is that I am not mad.
The ironic thing is that at one point John Lennon was featured in Apple's Think Different campaign.
...and some demons are keeping it nice and warm until they get there.
Microsoft is releasing OS X?
Your site won me over when you were the first and only site to announce unequivocably that iTools would become the $99/yr. .Mac service. Everyone posting at every other Mac forum decried it as impossible or unlikely or just plain wrong; it's funny to think back to all the explanations and discussions of why it simply could not happen, never, ever, end of story and how Apple would lose customers and go out of business and it would be the end of civilization as we know it so that rumor could not be right. Even I thought you guys had gone off the deep end.
Needless to say....
And you know that's wrong because...? What do your sources say? Did Think Secret announce a release date for iWorks or did they simply report that it was being worked on?
I take it you don't look at Think Secret on a regular basis. It is, easily, the most accurate Mac rumors site out there. In fact, they have posted info on numerous occasions that has caught the attention of Apple's lawyers, and have been forced to pull down and issue their standard disclaimer. Say what you will about other rumors sites (most of them simply feed off each other) but there are some startlingly reliable sources informing Think Secret. Frankly, I don't recall the last time they were wrong about anything they've posted.
That should be Apple's new slogan.
Yes, it's very observant at this point to notice yet again that this kind of thing is primarily a marketing move... yadda yadda... but what does it matter? The reason I stick with my Mac is that, even at half the speed of a PC, I'm more productive than with Windows. It's mostly because of the care and thought that goes into the interface and the way you can interact with the machine. There's a lot to that. For example, my boss (a PC user) is constantly blown away by the consistent implementation of drag-and-drop on the Mac desktop, along with the concept of text clippings. From what I've seen Windows is still struggling to catch up with where the Mac was way back in System 7.
That's one example, but it's simple, well thought out stuff like that that keeps me on a Mac. I'm not interested in the whole Computing Speed Circle Jerk and I wonder why it matters so much that people get into these divisive arguments about the validity of SPEC numbers and all. Who cares?
It's so nice to see Microsoft finally get something right.
Is it any surprise at all that an MS-backed search engine would yield dubious results? Maybe someone with the technical expertise could start an open source search engine project to offer people an alternative to yet another attempt by the Redmond Giant Octopus to grow another tentacle. Is there such a project already? If not, why not? Who wouldn't love to see a search site completely devoid of commercial content and "paid links" and whatnot?
I'm sure everyone here can sympathize with companies and individuals who are hurt by piracy and I feel that they have every right to pursue it in whatever way they legally can. But that's the problem. As soon as a company uses illegal or unethical methods to combat illegal and unethical abuse, they lose me as well as the moral upper-hand. There are plenty of ways to combat piracy without invading a customer's privacy and I think it behooves a company or developer to explore those avenues. Also, they need to accept that there is always going to be a segment of users who will use pirated software. And I'm not so sure that matters. I would assume that most people doing so wouldn't have paid for the software legitimately anyway, no matter what, so it's hard to say that any potential profit has been lost by anyone. Tactics like "phoning home" and convoluted registration methods, dongles and other nuissaances only irritate paying customers and likely don't stop any piracy at all.
Being sued twice in 20+ years for failing to live up to what is likely poorly directed marketing hype causes you to call into question the wisdom of Apple controlling the hardware and the software to achieve better system operation? The fact that users have one company to sue when their claims are lacking is, in itself, an advantage to the consumer. Who do you turn to when such claims don't work on the Wintel platform? (Not that that's ever happened, right... ahem?)
I'm a Mac user, have been for years and will continue to be so, but I am always happy to hear Linux gaining ground whether it's on the desktop or server market. The success of any platform other than Windows is, IMO, something to feel good about. I hope Linux makes in-roads into the desktop market some way or another. I'm not sure if incompatibility with Windows networks is really a valid strike against Linux or not. Seems to me that anything not coming from Redmond has trouble working in a Windows environment.
BTW, I'm a Mac user and I thought the cube was a great looking machine so no flames for this, thankyouverymuch.
Sylvester Wins Tweety-Bird Security Contract. Film at 11.
2nd December, 1976: Hipgnosis photo shoot for "Animals" at Battersea Power Station in London. An inflatable pig breaks free and (depending on which story you believe) is shot down by a marksman or eventually comes to earth in a field in Kent.
from The Pink Floyd Timeline
I have to wonder if Apple isn't trying to maneuver MS into a position of having to maintain their Office suite for Mac OS X. We just witnessed a five-year span where a standoff (or "agreement") between the two companies ensured continued Office for OS X development, thereby staving off a lawsuit by Apple against MS. I wonder if Apple reinstating their patent on fast-user switching isn't a way to position MS into another similar agreement. Who knows? Curious move on Apple's part.
You're extrapolating from one situation that may have its own unique problems.
Your obviously trolling
Why? Because I disagree, I'm a troll?
public education is a joke of interfering laws, red tape, misspending, and parental apathy.
I agree. I'm a parent myself and see it, but how does cutting funding fix all that? You're throwing in different problems to attempt justification of cutting school funding. That doesn't make any sense. You can fix those problems without choking a school's funds.
In oak ridge, an overwhelming majority of parents care about their kids education and as a result, the children thrive.
I don't disagree that there is a connection between parental involvement and student success, but don't ignore the link between that and money. The reality is that parents can't always be involved with their child's education due to jobs (sometimes several if it's a single parent or works for minimum wage) or other concerns that make it impossible to be involved. Again, cutting funding to schools doesn't help parents get more involved. In fact, schools turn to parents in many of these cases to help out. Many parents are already strapped for time and money. In the situation you cited, I would compare income levels of families around the schools. Poor areas will inevitably have less parent participation and therefore worse student results. Cutting funding solves nothing.
In summation, (money != success) && (parental interest == success)
I agree, but then I made no claims to the contrary in my previous post. I'm not sure why you're using that to justify under-funding schools.
Really? What are you sources for that information? Over the last decade or so, we have done nothing of the sort. This "throwing money at education" is a right-wing myth that has been successfully used by a greedy, short-sighted segment of the population to hang on to a few extra pennies. Walk into your local schools and tell me if it looks like a place that has had money "thrown" at it. You're buying into a lie. And even if you can cite examples of school funding being increased, you will still have a very difficult time explaining why that increase is so meager when compared to other areas of government funding or when compared to the growth in the school's numbers.
Let's be clear: we Americans have NEVER "thrown money" at schools unless you somehow define "throwing money" as a pittance. Schools have never suffered from being over-funded. Not even close. It feels better, I suppose, to rant about a perceived problem and get a few extra bucks back in your pocket with a tax cut than to actually look into what may be causing the problem and accept that it costs a certain amount of money to educate your country's youth.
If you don't see the differences between Apple's bundling of Safari and MS's bundling of IE, then there's really no point in me explaining it to you.
Have you successfully been able to remove Quicktime from OS X? It's *BOLTED* onto OS X.. impossible to remove.
A quick drag to the trash would do it. I know that's not a very thorough response, but then, your claim that QT is "bolted" onto OS X was about as thorough.