A good artist is not driven by the format his music is delivered in. If you are worried about "hit" driven artists, then you are not listening to good music.
Artists have to fit into the world of their target audience, for the most part. If the music world gets used to the idea of "songs" instead of "albums", then that is what artists will produce.
Think about it - why do they make full albums? Because it is more cost effective to do so. Previously, it cost a lot to make an album, and that was how you delivered to your fans. (it still does cost a lot, but hang with me.) If the market changes so that everything is song based, that is what the artists will do. They could release one or two songs at a time, as they finish them. That could be good, or very very bad. You could get a semi-constant stream of new songs from the bands you like. Or, you could get unfinished songs that aren't well thought out. There may be no composition to the album.
Imagine getting songs released one at a time from "Dark Side of the Moon". It doesn't work. You need the whole experience. It would be like MTV without the video - create the latest hit, pump it and dump it.
And I like my share of hit music too, just as much as the more, shall we say, artistic stuff. I can go from Nelly's "It's Getting Hot in Herre" to Bob Marley's "No Woman No Cry" to the Beastie Boys' "In Threes" to GNR "Paradise City". Sometimes the artist can capture the mood in one song alone. Others really thrive on the feel of the entire album.
I don't think it is an easy answer. Besides, the music industry drives what we hear anyway, unless you care enough to not listen and find your own music. But not all hit music is bad either. I had worn out one Appetite for Destruction tape and was about through my second by the time they hit it big. They were a hit band, but they had more than just hits. Unfortunately, they pissed it all away, but at least we got that album from them.
I have been thinking about this "single-song purchase" idea for a while now. I go back and forth between two camps:
A. I should be able to buy the songs I like, without having to buy the whole album.
B. I should be forced to buy the whole album.
Now, let me explain why I dislike both of these...
A. I think this approach will encourage less and less thought for artists. Everything would be "hit" driven, much like it is today. The days of "good albums" would be gone, it would all be song driven. Sometimes I find some of my favorite songs aren't the hits played 1000000 times on the radio. I like discovering other tracks. Not all goods songs are the popular ones. Artists would be less inclined to take risks, or put any thought into the layout of the album.
B. I may not want to buy the whole album. I have been burned many times in the past. I have heard a good song, bought the album, and it sucked ass. In that event, the good song was just an ad to get me to buy the whole album. I'll bet a lot of albums have been sold on this principle. Sometimes groups just get lucky with one song. For older music, I think the individual songs should be made available on a per-song basis. After 2 years (and some could argue even one) the album sales basically drop to nothing. In that case, release the individual songs, so people can make compilation CDs or whatever they want. At that point, the album is effectively dead anyway, you might as well reap the benefits of the hit songs.
But like I said, I bounce back and forth between these ideas. You might think that it doesn't matter what I want, that the RIAA will decide what I want. But I am just one of many. They could really make the music industry take off again, where everyone is really into music. Hell, the market is THERE, they just don't see it. I haven't bought a new CD for at least 2 years, simply because nothing out there interests me. I am sure that there is stuff out there I would like, but I am instead fed the tripe that the average teeny-bopper and idiot consumer will swallow. Instead, I am going over my 300+ CD collection and rediscovering music that I "own". Hey RIAA - up yours.
Our coding projects go 3x faster on Windows than on Mac or Linux. Those are the facts.
You can start ignoring them.... now.
Fine. That isn't the argument I was making. To me, that is a VALID argument. I can't say whether it is true or not, it may be true for you. Yipee. Now look at what I wrote, and what my argument really is - you can't get a custom solution from Microsoft. If you are developing your own app, sure it may be faster to develop it for Windows. But if there is a bug *IN* Windows that you can't get around (easily) then you are stuck. Nobody but Microsoft can help you, and they won't.
In other news, George Lucas has sued the Church for unauthorized use of the Darth Vader image.
He has also reportedly been in quite a lawsuit with Lucifer over his soul, claiming that when he sold it he was promised that the Star Wars prequels would be awesome. Lucifer is countering that they were a slam dunk but Lucas f'd them up by reselling his soul to corporate America.
In fact, Britain had toyed with the idea of declaring war on the USSR in the Winter of 1939 - under the pretext of aiding Finland which was being invaded by Stalin at the time, but really as an excuse to occupy ore-rich Sweden.
What you say? One country invading another for natural resources under the pretext of liberation and justice?
Why, that is so far-fetched it's incomprehensible-flaven-goyven. With the oil, and the grudges, and cowboy hats, and the terrrism, and the nuculur threat, and the weapons of mass destruuuuuuuction.
So when it comes to development models, you're claiming the edge?
If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.' You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing. It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe operating system. They don't write the code for it. All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'
Man, if he wants to argue that the closed development model is better, that is arguable. But to make the arguments he made? WTF?! IBM can't code a Linux solution for a customer? That is the whole point of OSS, they are able to do it. Or you can hire someone else. What is the deal with this statement:
IBM: 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'
This is so absolutely FALSE. It couldn't be more false. Compare it with this, which is 100% true:
MS: 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we won't do it. And neither will you.'
Damn, monkeyboy, you should really stop doing interviews.
I dont believe the article said ANYWHERE it was free.
Because it will run on Linux, you assume it is? You know,, Linux will never become the de-facto OS if people are not willing to PAY for developers to make software for it.
Who ever said they wanted Linux to become the de-facto OS?
I know I sure as hell don't. I just want to use it, and not have anyone try to prevent me from using it.
The GPL is not an EULA - it's a distribution license. Maybe if the MS EULA dictated terms under which you can distribute WinXP, then you might be able to compare them.
I just have to ask - what's the point?
I see your point, they are different. But there are ties. You need to know what you are getting into when you install software.
The GPL says "do what you want - BUT if you decide to distribute it, you must follow these rules...."
The MS EULA says "by installing this software, you agree to the following terms....".
Yes, they are different, but MS has been FUDding the heck out of the GPL. So someone compared it to their EULA. (not very well, mind you, but whatever)
You are right, they are different things. But people need to understand that they are different things, and WHY they are different. I think they should have a nutshell comparison of the two:
GPL: "You own this software, do what you want with it. If you redistribute it in any way, follow the courteous rules defined in the license agreement."
MSEULA: "We own your ass, and can change the terms of owning your ass whenever we want. We reserve the right to own your ass in the future."
If I remember correctly from the first movie, Terminators never get old. Could have fooled me.
I loved the first movie, and the second was really good. I don't think it is going out on a limb to say this one is pushing it. Part of the draw of the first movie, and many good movies, are the untold stories. Knowing that the machines took over is scary, I don't need to see exactly how it happened. I don't need to have the drawn-out details of a war shown to me to get the concept or make it any more powerful. The second movie survived on two things: the cool special effects of the T2000, and the twist that Arnold was the bad guy. The story wasn't all that interesting.
When I saw the first trailer, I thought it looked lame. Now this post seems to think that THIS trailer is a complete 180 on that. I have seen girl's butts before, I have seen explosions, and guns, and war battles. I have heard this story, I know what happens. To me, this is just another action movie.
Now, I am going to sit down and pray that they didn't taint the Matrix the way everything else seems to have been tainted.
Well, technically he didn't go to jail just for hacking, he went to jail for breaking the law while hacking, or as a result of his hacking. Think about it for a second.
OK.
....
Nope, still wrong. He was jailed for planning to give a speech about ebook security. He was jailed under the DMCA, for five months, and was later cleared of all charges. But the penalties he faced were farrrrr greater than the probation that the parent poster of my comment stated.
Ani Difranco has been pretty successful in her endeavors. She realized the RIAA wasn't interested in her music, so she made it all herself. So it is not totally impossible to exist outside the RIAA
True, and there are others. But I don't think anyone has made it BIG. You can exist outside the RIAA, but not very well. The system they have put in place makes sure of that. Radio stations, big record stores, MTV, etc. They all cater to the whims of the record industry. Rap actually had a chance to buck the system because they had such a strong following. Most rap labels are members of the RIAA though.
CDs are nothing more than advertisements for bands. Bands should make thier money working (i.e. touring, concerts, etc), and not sitting down at one recording session and cranking out 10 bajillion CDs.
Bands *DO* make their money by going out and working. What you described is how the record industry makes money, not the artist.
What will break the RIAA is if a few artists go it alone, don't sign a deal with the devil, and make it big. If others see it is possible, they may follow suit. Of course, that presumes that it is possible to succeed without the RIAA's blessing.
I have probably interviewed 50+ people over my 10 years in the industry. I have known people who have asked questions like these, dumb questions (what part of a Big Mac would you be, and why?), boring questions (where do you see yourself in 5 years), or even had them write code to solve a problem.
They all suck. For me, when I interview someone I talk to them, I don't grill them. I find out what they know and what they don't know. If you have Unix on your resume, I ask what shell you use. If you don't know, then you shouldn't have Unix on your resume and be interviewing for a position where it is the OS that our product runs on. At least you shouldn't say "I know Unix". (true story)
One place I interviewed at, wasn't sure about me. They didn't feel that I was enthusiastic enough about their company. They wanted me to come back for a second interview to see if I could be a little more excited. I declined. If 4 hours of talking to 5 different people didn't let them make their decision, then in my opinion I wasn't a good fit for them.
I don't care how intelligent someone is, if they can't work with people then they are useless to me. Rarely are there jobs in the software industry where you don't interact with other people. I once worked with a guy who was a contractor at NASA for years. He told us some pretty cool stories, and he had some high clearance there. But he was a crappy worker. It took him forever to get the simplest things. He kept color-coded notecards with him at all times, and he would write down things you told him. If you asked him a question, he had to take out his notecards and look it up.
I always ask myself "would I want to work with this person?". Chances are if they are interviewing, they have some technical skills. Can they learn new ones? One guy, when asked if he knew Unix, said no, but if you gave him a manual he could learn it. He had a PhD. I was against it, but he was hired. Contrary to what he said, he couldn't learn Unix. After almost a year, I still had to explain over and over how to list the contents of a directory. Kind of hard to test a Unix server like that.
I am of the firm opinion that you have to be able to work with people. Get a feel for the person when you are interviewing them. But that is just me, I am not a huge faceless corporation. I suppose if I went to work for Microsoft I'd have to change my ideas.
P.S. Did anyone else notice how many times the word Microsoft was repeated in that article? Creepy.
Since when are we putting hackers behind bars just for hacking? We put people in jail for breaking the law, and usually first time convicted hackers just get probation.
Yea, but selling a whopping total of two shirts to you mom isn't going to catch anyone's attention.
Make money on every email you read... [sendmoreinfo.com]
Actually, I have never sold any of them to anyone other than myself. I did it just cause I thought it was hilarious and cafepress made it easy. So I designed some more. If you want to design your own shirts, even if just for yourself, they make it pretty easy. I did sell a couple of the other designs though. The whole reason I got the idea to do it myself was because I sent an idea to ThinkGeek, and they used it. They sent me a couple of free Tshirts and a $100 gift certificate. But they balked at the MS shirt, saying it was too anti-MS. So I did it myself. No big woop if nobody buys one, then I will have the only one.:-)
And you should talk, with that sig. I'd rather not make any money by designing Tshirts than make money being a scumbag.
I created the "Micropoly" shirt last year, and haven't had any problems. It is a combination of the Monopoly logo and Mr Gates himself. Personally, I think it is hilariously clever.
I guess I would be in big trouble if anyone ever actually bought them.:-) But I just created it for fun anyway, it isn't like my financial future is riding on it.
Privacy is for terrorists. Only terrorists have any need for privacy, so what are you trying to hide?Cisco is just being an upstanding and Patriotic American(TM) under the all-American DMCA, CTEA, and PATRIOT Acts, lawfully passed by the Congress Corporation, and signed into American Best-Practices by Chairman Bush.
I get what you are saying, but this is not a new concept. I used to work for a big cell-phone maker, in the cellular software division. I saw preliminary information about a wiretap project that would allow the carrier to intercept, log, and reroute calls if told to do so by some authorized government agency. I have no doubts this is possible, because we were working on real-time systems. To do it would take a second or two at most. I don't know what ever happened to that project, it kind of faded away and our department didn't actually work on it. But this was back in '94, so I am sure something similar has been implemented somewhere.
This isn't new, we are just able to find out about things like this now because of the internet. As much as we don't want "our" technology mucked with by the government, I think it is going to be tough to prevent.
Computer Science seems to be the only profession in which we still have access to the people that helped start it. I've always enjoyed that. Take Whitfield Diffie [sun.com], for example.
When you see Charles Babbage or Alan Turing, tell them I said Hi.:-)
I get your point though, we have more modern founders than any other profession that is so widely recognized. But there will always be someone long dead who paved the way for Computer Science. It all depends on who you consider truly "started" it. On the shoulders of giants you know. Also, Computer Science is a pretty broad term now, there are definite "specializations" and crossover professions within pure CS.
I have to say, this one will probably suck just like most other Comic adaptations. I think the thing that they need to work on is the story. Batman didn't. Spiderman tried, but they just had to "Hollywood" it up. X-men did OK. Spawn made an attempt. I didn't see Daredevil, but DAMN, Jennifer Garner will make me rent it for sure.
In bringing them to the screen they try to recreate the comics. They can't. The comics were kind of corny, but they had many many issues to develop the... story. They could revisit the story later, tweak it a little, and tease you with it. When they have to pack it all into a 2 hour movie, it doesn't work. Especially when the characters can be a little corny to start with, or teetering on the edge.
In all honesty, the Hulk's story got old pretty quickly to me. There are many other interesting stories they could do, and I am sure they will try. In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if they did Captain America. He was pretty lame at times, but I really liked the issues where he fought the Vampire (can't remember his name).
In essence, Hollywood just doesn't get it. They want to create a franchise, and sell merchandise. I used to have a Tshirt with the "Bat Signal" on it, several years before the first movie came out. Once I saw the movie, I never wore it again, they had ruined the "coolness" of it by completely saturating the market with Batman crap. Now I just remember the cool things for what they really are, and try not to pay attention to the popular opinion. The popular opinion is fed to people, and very rarely is it worth the small effort it takes to acknowledge it.
It's not just a dupe. Better yet, it's a tripe. tripe n.
1. Stomach tissue of a ruminant and especially of the ox used as food
2. Something poor, worthless, or offensive
Hmm, apparently the editors think that we are "Grade A morons" who graduated from "Bovine University".
Slashdot Mirror
Artists have to fit into the world of their target audience, for the most part. If the music world gets used to the idea of "songs" instead of "albums", then that is what artists will produce.
Think about it - why do they make full albums? Because it is more cost effective to do so. Previously, it cost a lot to make an album, and that was how you delivered to your fans. (it still does cost a lot, but hang with me.) If the market changes so that everything is song based, that is what the artists will do. They could release one or two songs at a time, as they finish them. That could be good, or very very bad. You could get a semi-constant stream of new songs from the bands you like. Or, you could get unfinished songs that aren't well thought out. There may be no composition to the album.
Imagine getting songs released one at a time from "Dark Side of the Moon". It doesn't work. You need the whole experience. It would be like MTV without the video - create the latest hit, pump it and dump it.
And I like my share of hit music too, just as much as the more, shall we say, artistic stuff. I can go from Nelly's "It's Getting Hot in Herre" to Bob Marley's "No Woman No Cry" to the Beastie Boys' "In Threes" to GNR "Paradise City". Sometimes the artist can capture the mood in one song alone. Others really thrive on the feel of the entire album.
I don't think it is an easy answer. Besides, the music industry drives what we hear anyway, unless you care enough to not listen and find your own music. But not all hit music is bad either. I had worn out one Appetite for Destruction tape and was about through my second by the time they hit it big. They were a hit band, but they had more than just hits. Unfortunately, they pissed it all away, but at least we got that album from them.
Well, to be technically accurate, the comic doesn't show "American Greetings" on the desk. Look at it again.
first pane: america greeting
second pane: reflection in the door: a?eric?? gr???????
third pane: ????ic?? g?eetin??
Now, we all KNOW who they are talking about, but they don't use the words "American Greetings" in the strip.
A. I should be able to buy the songs I like, without having to buy the whole album.
B. I should be forced to buy the whole album.
Now, let me explain why I dislike both of these...
A. I think this approach will encourage less and less thought for artists. Everything would be "hit" driven, much like it is today. The days of "good albums" would be gone, it would all be song driven. Sometimes I find some of my favorite songs aren't the hits played 1000000 times on the radio. I like discovering other tracks. Not all goods songs are the popular ones. Artists would be less inclined to take risks, or put any thought into the layout of the album.
B. I may not want to buy the whole album. I have been burned many times in the past. I have heard a good song, bought the album, and it sucked ass. In that event, the good song was just an ad to get me to buy the whole album. I'll bet a lot of albums have been sold on this principle. Sometimes groups just get lucky with one song. For older music, I think the individual songs should be made available on a per-song basis. After 2 years (and some could argue even one) the album sales basically drop to nothing. In that case, release the individual songs, so people can make compilation CDs or whatever they want. At that point, the album is effectively dead anyway, you might as well reap the benefits of the hit songs.
But like I said, I bounce back and forth between these ideas. You might think that it doesn't matter what I want, that the RIAA will decide what I want. But I am just one of many. They could really make the music industry take off again, where everyone is really into music. Hell, the market is THERE, they just don't see it. I haven't bought a new CD for at least 2 years, simply because nothing out there interests me. I am sure that there is stuff out there I would like, but I am instead fed the tripe that the average teeny-bopper and idiot consumer will swallow. Instead, I am going over my 300+ CD collection and rediscovering music that I "own". Hey RIAA - up yours.
Fine. That isn't the argument I was making. To me, that is a VALID argument. I can't say whether it is true or not, it may be true for you. Yipee. Now look at what I wrote, and what my argument really is - you can't get a custom solution from Microsoft. If you are developing your own app, sure it may be faster to develop it for Windows. But if there is a bug *IN* Windows that you can't get around (easily) then you are stuck. Nobody but Microsoft can help you, and they won't.
He has also reportedly been in quite a lawsuit with Lucifer over his soul, claiming that when he sold it he was promised that the Star Wars prequels would be awesome. Lucifer is countering that they were a slam dunk but Lucas f'd them up by reselling his soul to corporate America.
What you say? One country invading another for natural resources under the pretext of liberation and justice?
Why, that is so far-fetched it's incomprehensible-flaven-goyven. With the oil, and the grudges, and cowboy hats, and the terrrism, and the nuculur threat, and the weapons of mass destruuuuuuuction.
If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.' You can't turn to IBM. They don't write the thing. It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe operating system. They don't write the code for it. All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'
Man, if he wants to argue that the closed development model is better, that is arguable. But to make the arguments he made? WTF?! IBM can't code a Linux solution for a customer? That is the whole point of OSS, they are able to do it. Or you can hire someone else. What is the deal with this statement:
IBM: 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'
This is so absolutely FALSE. It couldn't be more false. Compare it with this, which is 100% true:
MS: 'You can call us and ask us a question, but if you actually want something done we won't do it. And neither will you.'
Damn, monkeyboy, you should really stop doing interviews.
Who ever said they wanted Linux to become the de-facto OS?
I know I sure as hell don't. I just want to use it, and not have anyone try to prevent me from using it.
Kodos: Its true. We are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? Its a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
First man: Hes right; this is a two-party system.
Second man: Well, I believe Ill vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead. Throw your vote away. [Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
I see your point, they are different. But there are ties. You need to know what you are getting into when you install software.
The GPL says "do what you want - BUT if you decide to distribute it, you must follow these rules...."
The MS EULA says "by installing this software, you agree to the following terms....".
Yes, they are different, but MS has been FUDding the heck out of the GPL. So someone compared it to their EULA. (not very well, mind you, but whatever)
You are right, they are different things. But people need to understand that they are different things, and WHY they are different. I think they should have a nutshell comparison of the two:
GPL: "You own this software, do what you want with it. If you redistribute it in any way, follow the courteous rules defined in the license agreement."
MSEULA: "We own your ass, and can change the terms of owning your ass whenever we want. We reserve the right to own your ass in the future."
I loved the first movie, and the second was really good. I don't think it is going out on a limb to say this one is pushing it. Part of the draw of the first movie, and many good movies, are the untold stories. Knowing that the machines took over is scary, I don't need to see exactly how it happened. I don't need to have the drawn-out details of a war shown to me to get the concept or make it any more powerful. The second movie survived on two things: the cool special effects of the T2000, and the twist that Arnold was the bad guy. The story wasn't all that interesting.
When I saw the first trailer, I thought it looked lame. Now this post seems to think that THIS trailer is a complete 180 on that. I have seen girl's butts before, I have seen explosions, and guns, and war battles. I have heard this story, I know what happens. To me, this is just another action movie.
Now, I am going to sit down and pray that they didn't taint the Matrix the way everything else seems to have been tainted.
OK.
Nope, still wrong. He was jailed for planning to give a speech about ebook security. He was jailed under the DMCA, for five months, and was later cleared of all charges. But the penalties he faced were farrrrr greater than the probation that the parent poster of my comment stated.
Here, why don't you try some reading:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/
True, and there are others. But I don't think anyone has made it BIG. You can exist outside the RIAA, but not very well. The system they have put in place makes sure of that. Radio stations, big record stores, MTV, etc. They all cater to the whims of the record industry. Rap actually had a chance to buck the system because they had such a strong following. Most rap labels are members of the RIAA though.
Bands *DO* make their money by going out and working. What you described is how the record industry makes money, not the artist.
What will break the RIAA is if a few artists go it alone, don't sign a deal with the devil, and make it big. If others see it is possible, they may follow suit. Of course, that presumes that it is possible to succeed without the RIAA's blessing.
So what happens if you send an email to abuse@emarketersamerica.org ?
They all suck. For me, when I interview someone I talk to them, I don't grill them. I find out what they know and what they don't know. If you have Unix on your resume, I ask what shell you use. If you don't know, then you shouldn't have Unix on your resume and be interviewing for a position where it is the OS that our product runs on. At least you shouldn't say "I know Unix". (true story)
One place I interviewed at, wasn't sure about me. They didn't feel that I was enthusiastic enough about their company. They wanted me to come back for a second interview to see if I could be a little more excited. I declined. If 4 hours of talking to 5 different people didn't let them make their decision, then in my opinion I wasn't a good fit for them.
I don't care how intelligent someone is, if they can't work with people then they are useless to me. Rarely are there jobs in the software industry where you don't interact with other people. I once worked with a guy who was a contractor at NASA for years. He told us some pretty cool stories, and he had some high clearance there. But he was a crappy worker. It took him forever to get the simplest things. He kept color-coded notecards with him at all times, and he would write down things you told him. If you asked him a question, he had to take out his notecards and look it up.
I always ask myself "would I want to work with this person?". Chances are if they are interviewing, they have some technical skills. Can they learn new ones? One guy, when asked if he knew Unix, said no, but if you gave him a manual he could learn it. He had a PhD. I was against it, but he was hired. Contrary to what he said, he couldn't learn Unix. After almost a year, I still had to explain over and over how to list the contents of a directory. Kind of hard to test a Unix server like that.
I am of the firm opinion that you have to be able to work with people. Get a feel for the person when you are interviewing them. But that is just me, I am not a huge faceless corporation. I suppose if I went to work for Microsoft I'd have to change my ideas.
P.S. Did anyone else notice how many times the word Microsoft was repeated in that article? Creepy.
Dmitry Skylarov.
'nuff said.
Make money on every email you read... [sendmoreinfo.com]
Actually, I have never sold any of them to anyone other than myself. I did it just cause I thought it was hilarious and cafepress made it easy. So I designed some more. If you want to design your own shirts, even if just for yourself, they make it pretty easy. I did sell a couple of the other designs though. The whole reason I got the idea to do it myself was because I sent an idea to ThinkGeek, and they used it. They sent me a couple of free Tshirts and a $100 gift certificate. But they balked at the MS shirt, saying it was too anti-MS. So I did it myself. No big woop if nobody buys one, then I will have the only one. :-)
And you should talk, with that sig. I'd rather not make any money by designing Tshirts than make money being a scumbag.
I guess I would be in big trouble if anyone ever actually bought them. :-) But I just created it for fun anyway, it isn't like my financial future is riding on it.
www.poundingsand.com and look for Micropoly. (view larger image to see it better)
Nah, I think Microsoft has it's eye on the name Pinto as a replacement name for IIS.
I get what you are saying, but this is not a new concept. I used to work for a big cell-phone maker, in the cellular software division. I saw preliminary information about a wiretap project that would allow the carrier to intercept, log, and reroute calls if told to do so by some authorized government agency. I have no doubts this is possible, because we were working on real-time systems. To do it would take a second or two at most. I don't know what ever happened to that project, it kind of faded away and our department didn't actually work on it. But this was back in '94, so I am sure something similar has been implemented somewhere.
This isn't new, we are just able to find out about things like this now because of the internet. As much as we don't want "our" technology mucked with by the government, I think it is going to be tough to prevent.
When you see Charles Babbage or Alan Turing, tell them I said Hi. :-)
I get your point though, we have more modern founders than any other profession that is so widely recognized. But there will always be someone long dead who paved the way for Computer Science. It all depends on who you consider truly "started" it. On the shoulders of giants you know. Also, Computer Science is a pretty broad term now, there are definite "specializations" and crossover professions within pure CS.
In bringing them to the screen they try to recreate the comics. They can't. The comics were kind of corny, but they had many many issues to develop the ... story. They could revisit the story later, tweak it a little, and tease you with it. When they have to pack it all into a 2 hour movie, it doesn't work. Especially when the characters can be a little corny to start with, or teetering on the edge.
In all honesty, the Hulk's story got old pretty quickly to me. There are many other interesting stories they could do, and I am sure they will try. In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if they did Captain America. He was pretty lame at times, but I really liked the issues where he fought the Vampire (can't remember his name).
In essence, Hollywood just doesn't get it. They want to create a franchise, and sell merchandise. I used to have a Tshirt with the "Bat Signal" on it, several years before the first movie came out. Once I saw the movie, I never wore it again, they had ruined the "coolness" of it by completely saturating the market with Batman crap. Now I just remember the cool things for what they really are, and try not to pay attention to the popular opinion. The popular opinion is fed to people, and very rarely is it worth the small effort it takes to acknowledge it.
tripe n.
1. Stomach tissue of a ruminant and especially of the ox used as food
2. Something poor, worthless, or offensive
Hmm, apparently the editors think that we are "Grade A morons" who graduated from "Bovine University".
And as of 04-22-2008, the owner has yet to collect any royalties whatsoever.