One of the stated purposes of IE7 was to better support the W3C standards, and (presumably) to increase compatibility among W3C-compliant browsers. Yet despite multiple requests for DOM 2 Events support, the IE team decided to overlook this support. Currently, IE is the only major browser lacking DOM Events support. Which is a major issue, as IE's attachEvent() design means that special code must be written for IE compatibility.
As someone who's been forced into using runtime patches (example) to increase IE's compatibility with DHTML code, I feel compelled to ask: Why has the IE team ignored this critical standard?
This will kill Youtube, of course, and Google will have wasted a lot of money on nothing.
You're making the presumption that Google intended to keep Youtube as it was when they bought it.
Seriously, Youtube kicked Google Video's butt in the market. Google realized that if you can't beat 'em, you should join them. So they bought off Youtube, and now their major competitor is themselves. They can do whatever they want with Youtube because it can only be positive for Google Video.
Being Google, I don't expect them to shut the doors like Oracle & PeopleSoft. Rather, I expect that Google will aim to take whatever it is that makes Youtube successful, and merge it with the Google Video backend. In theory, this fusion would improve both services. In practice... well.... (*rocks open hand*) eh, we'll see.
Telemarketing == Outbound Call Center Customer Service == Inbound Call Center
Which does this sound like:
Health insurer Wisconsin Physicians Service, for example, uses the technology to scan automated phone calls for "Medicare" and "confused" to find calls from seniors with Medicare questions.
And this?
Roger Woolley, vice president of marketing for speech analytic software seller eTalk, of Irving, Texas, said subtler systems are used to identify when an angry customer is preparing to cancel services.
I think a telemarketer can judge for himself whether or not you're upset. (And promptly ignore you.) This system is intended for support calls, where the customer service rep might not realize that they need to take action to prevent the loss of your business. Presumably, the system would automatically flag a manager if it calcualted that the customer was getting frustrated.
Considering the number of inexperienced customer service reps that companies employ, it's probably not a bad idea. Especially since it's currently difficult to auto-route "easy" vs. "hard" calls between the experienced and inexperienced employees.
Him personally? No. But the movie was not that great. A lot of people like it because it portrayed a very dark Batman Universe, but I felt it was dark just for the sake of being dark. I just didn't find it all that enjoyable, even though it was TONS better than the sequels.
Take it from a real soldier: they "looked" like a bunch of second-rate actors trying way too hard, and failing miserably.
Come on, cut 'em some slack. They had to ham it up for the silver screen. They still got the basics down well enough not to come off as absolute caricatures of soldiers. (Like so many movies, where the characters don't even practice basic weapon handling/safety.) It's not Stargate SG-1, but then again, what is?;)
Sure, Doom barely broke even after dvd/vhs rental (yet they're making a second [last I heard].. so that says something).
FWIW, I actually thought Doom was the best video game movie ever made. I was especially impressed by the training they received to "look" like real soldiers. If it hadn't pumped up the expectations for extreme violence so much, it probably would have done even better.
But Tomb Raider grossed $131M in the US alone, with another $60M in rental market (plus foreign box office, merchandising, etc). With a production budget of $80M, that's a nifty return.
Let's be honest, though. Tomb Raider sold heavily on sex appeal rather than story line. The movie itself was less than spectacular.
If we ignore that and take the profits at face value, then we're still nowhere near close enough to make a $200,000,000 movie. The total return on Tomb Raider was less than it would cost to finance a $200,000,000 movie, much less make a profit on it.:(
I believe is the storyline does its own thing
I agree completely. The story is key to making a good movie. Traditionally, Comic Book movies only did so-so themselves. That is, until some real talent started stepping up to the plate and adding incredible storytelling behind them. However, comic books have incredible amounts of storyline to pick and chose from. Video Games do not have that luxury, and may even be unsuitable for live-action. (Witness: Super Mario Bros.) In addition, many comic books are culturally iconic, allowing them to reach an audience far beyond the actual readership. This is something that video games rarely share.
Also, as an aside, I have you "friended" on/., and do thoroughly enjoy reading most of your comments. This is the first time i've had the chance to reply to a "friend," since I mostly lurk (and generally only post in articles relating to digital cinema, or film stuff.. since that is what I do). Keep up the good comments;)
Actually, that double-green bubble means that I'm a friend of a friend. You never actually marked me as such. But thank you for your kind words. I'd try to keep my comment quality high.:)
- Batman Begins was estimated at $150,000,000 - The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was estimated at $93,000,000 - The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was estimated at $94,000,000 - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was estimated at $94,000,000 - King Kong was estimated at $207,000,000 - Star Wars Episode III was estimated at $113,000,000 - X-Men 3 was estimated at $210,000,000
Long story short, Jackson would have to prove that a video game movie would appeal to a wide enough audience to justify comparing it to King Kong and X-Men 3. Considering that video game movies always do poorly, I can see why the studios don't believe him.
You cannot discuss the Video Game Crash without mentioning the "Super Systems" like the Colecovision and the 5200. Systems like the Intellivision and the O^2 also played a huge role. Mentioning it in passing is hardly addressing the console crash, much less the "warfare" that caused it.
I left out a bunch of consoles that simply weren't relevant in the market. Otherwise I would have droned on and on about the Bally Astrocade, the Emerson Arcadia, the Neo-Geo, the SG-1000 (Mark I, II, & III), the APF Imagination Machine, the Wonderswan, the Apple Pippin, the...
Usually, a discussion of "warfare" would include some actual, oh I dunno, warfare? Instead, all we get is a bunch of pictures of the winners and the hanger-ons of gaming history. (Starting with the requisite reference to the Magnavox Odyssey.) The whole article feels like it was put together to create yet another story about the new game consoles coming out. To flesh it out, they took a few pictures and ripped a little data from Wikipedia.
I mean, how can you write an article *supposedly* about video game warfare, but so completely miss the Video Game Crash of '83/84?!? You're far better off checking out Wikipedia's article on the same thing.
That being said, someone behind the scenes seemed to know what they were doing. the Tron Deadly Discs cartridge was a hilarious backslap at both Atari and this article.
A list of systems oddly missing:
Channel F (FIRST cartridge based system)
Intellivision
Odyssey^2
Colecovision
Atari 5200
Atari 7800
TurboGrafx 16
Atari Jaguar
3DO
All of those were supremely important to the history of video game "warfare". Yet not a one in sight. How odd.
Suppose we have everyone in the world guess the outcome of a 100 coin flips. Some fraction would be 100% correct. Repeat a few times. We've now winnowed down a pool of people who are excellent at guessing coin flips, right? It's safer to go with their guess than the guess of someone else, right?
Except that you're trying to predict a random event that can't be predicted. When a good baseball team defeats a bad baseball team, there's nothing random about it. When one candidate is elected over another, the answer already exists; it only needs to be tabulated. When a company makes a move in the marketplace, it does so based on the options it has open to it.
These are not random events. Someone who is good at understanding the nuances behind them, CAN predict their outcome. The problem with situations like rising Stock Brokers is that they often rely on abstract models (which may or may not have any meaning) and/or the contacts through which they were getting their info are not as potent as they once were.
Me: "You are saying that these agencies will read between the lines to help Bush become "the emperor" of the United States Empire?"
DocRuby: "I'm not talking aboug "reading between the lines". I'm talking about writing policy as a smokescreen for the real agenda, to put nukes in space. Michael Griffin was a Star Wars scientist, and now NASA is putting Star Wars tech in space."
There is a certain logic to this. How many times have "experts" told us screwy nonsense, and had lousy track records, and yet the public at large retained them as experts? Sometimes, the untrained may be able to see things that the supposedly well-trained can't.
Or to put it another way, it all becomes a set of probabilities. If person X has guessed the outcome of something (say, a football game) correctly 80% of the time, then you're safer betting on his predictions than you are betting on expert Y who is only correct 30% of the time. If you aggregate the probabilities and successes, you should be able to develop a model with a high probability of being correct. You'll never be able to gain 100% accuracy, but that's just the nature of the Universe.;)
Forget it. The last time we discussed this, the thread was overrun by DocRuby and his galant band of Bush haters. This thread has already devolved into the same sort of nonsense. Which is really too bad, because the document actually says is that Nuclear Power in Space is a Good Thing(TM) for space exploration. But too many people are busy making nonsensical claims about "reading between the lines" or it being evidence of the real agenda, which isn't actually contained in the document. (WTF?)
*sigh*
Looks like they already modded you down. And so it begins.
Thats the root of the problem. I'd wager 90% of the functioanlity for browsers is only used by 5% of end users.
You would lose that wager. 80%+ of the technology that makes web browsers tick is required just to show you a blasted web page. The standardized APIs allow a good way for JavaScript to then make those pages interactive. Not too many sites are JavaScript-free these days.
What I think you're trying to say, is that features above and beyond the W3C standards are:
1. Not useful 2. Poor attempts at lockin 3. Dangerous
If Microsoft would just stick to the bloody standards, we'd all be better off. Unfortunately, they're still in 1995 mode, trying to beat Netscape at their own propertization game. It wouldn't surprise me if the requests for DOM 2 Events support were STILL ignored in this "final" release of IE7. *grumble* And Microsoft thinks developers will like them because of this?
Slashdot Mirror
One of the stated purposes of IE7 was to better support the W3C standards, and (presumably) to increase compatibility among W3C-compliant browsers. Yet despite multiple requests for DOM 2 Events support, the IE team decided to overlook this support. Currently, IE is the only major browser lacking DOM Events support. Which is a major issue, as IE's attachEvent() design means that special code must be written for IE compatibility.
As someone who's been forced into using runtime patches (example) to increase IE's compatibility with DHTML code, I feel compelled to ask: Why has the IE team ignored this critical standard?
You're making the presumption that Google intended to keep Youtube as it was when they bought it.
Seriously, Youtube kicked Google Video's butt in the market. Google realized that if you can't beat 'em, you should join them. So they bought off Youtube, and now their major competitor is themselves. They can do whatever they want with Youtube because it can only be positive for Google Video.
Being Google, I don't expect them to shut the doors like Oracle & PeopleSoft. Rather, I expect that Google will aim to take whatever it is that makes Youtube successful, and merge it with the Google Video backend. In theory, this fusion would improve both services. In practice... well.... (*rocks open hand*) eh, we'll see.
I'm guessing that it either rhymed with "Hell" or started with a lowercase 'e'. Am I close?
Telemarketing == Outbound Call Center
Customer Service == Inbound Call Center
Which does this sound like:
And this?
I think a telemarketer can judge for himself whether or not you're upset. (And promptly ignore you.) This system is intended for support calls, where the customer service rep might not realize that they need to take action to prevent the loss of your business. Presumably, the system would automatically flag a manager if it calcualted that the customer was getting frustrated.
Considering the number of inexperienced customer service reps that companies employ, it's probably not a bad idea. Especially since it's currently difficult to auto-route "easy" vs. "hard" calls between the experienced and inexperienced employees.
Editors: Can we change the headline?
Him personally? No. But the movie was not that great. A lot of people like it because it portrayed a very dark Batman Universe, but I felt it was dark just for the sake of being dark. I just didn't find it all that enjoyable, even though it was TONS better than the sequels.
Come on, cut 'em some slack. They had to ham it up for the silver screen. They still got the basics down well enough not to come off as absolute caricatures of soldiers. (Like so many movies, where the characters don't even practice basic weapon handling/safety.) It's not Stargate SG-1, but then again, what is?
Geez, everyone is phoning home these days. Who's next, E.T.?!?
You have a funny definition of "crap" there boy-o. Especially when you're talking about the only really good movie ever made about my namesake.
FWIW, I actually thought Doom was the best video game movie ever made. I was especially impressed by the training they received to "look" like real soldiers. If it hadn't pumped up the expectations for extreme violence so much, it probably would have done even better.
Let's be honest, though. Tomb Raider sold heavily on sex appeal rather than story line. The movie itself was less than spectacular.
If we ignore that and take the profits at face value, then we're still nowhere near close enough to make a $200,000,000 movie. The total return on Tomb Raider was less than it would cost to finance a $200,000,000 movie, much less make a profit on it.
I agree completely. The story is key to making a good movie. Traditionally, Comic Book movies only did so-so themselves. That is, until some real talent started stepping up to the plate and adding incredible storytelling behind them. However, comic books have incredible amounts of storyline to pick and chose from. Video Games do not have that luxury, and may even be unsuitable for live-action. (Witness: Super Mario Bros.) In addition, many comic books are culturally iconic, allowing them to reach an audience far beyond the actual readership. This is something that video games rarely share.
Actually, that double-green bubble means that I'm a friend of a friend. You never actually marked me as such. But thank you for your kind words. I'd try to keep my comment quality high.
To put this into perspective:
- Batman Begins was estimated at $150,000,000
- The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was estimated at $93,000,000
- The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was estimated at $94,000,000
- The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was estimated at $94,000,000
- King Kong was estimated at $207,000,000
- Star Wars Episode III was estimated at $113,000,000
- X-Men 3 was estimated at $210,000,000
Long story short, Jackson would have to prove that a video game movie would appeal to a wide enough audience to justify comparing it to King Kong and X-Men 3. Considering that video game movies always do poorly, I can see why the studios don't believe him.
It's good to know they're not taking themselves too seriously. That's something, at least.
I chose to use a Commodore 64 for educating my own son:
s s/archives/42
http://akaimbatman.intelligentblogger.com/wordpre
You cannot discuss the Video Game Crash without mentioning the "Super Systems" like the Colecovision and the 5200. Systems like the Intellivision and the O^2 also played a huge role. Mentioning it in passing is hardly addressing the console crash, much less the "warfare" that caused it.
PROFIT!
The VirtualBoy.
I left out a bunch of consoles that simply weren't relevant in the market. Otherwise I would have droned on and on about the Bally Astrocade, the Emerson Arcadia, the Neo-Geo, the SG-1000 (Mark I, II, & III), the APF Imagination Machine, the Wonderswan, the Apple Pippin, the...
Um... I'm droning on, aren't I?
I mean, how can you write an article *supposedly* about video game warfare, but so completely miss the Video Game Crash of '83/84?!? You're far better off checking out Wikipedia's article on the same thing.
That being said, someone behind the scenes seemed to know what they were doing. the Tron Deadly Discs cartridge was a hilarious backslap at both Atari and this article.
A list of systems oddly missing:
All of those were supremely important to the history of video game "warfare". Yet not a one in sight. How odd.
Except that you're trying to predict a random event that can't be predicted. When a good baseball team defeats a bad baseball team, there's nothing random about it. When one candidate is elected over another, the answer already exists; it only needs to be tabulated. When a company makes a move in the marketplace, it does so based on the options it has open to it.
These are not random events. Someone who is good at understanding the nuances behind them, CAN predict their outcome. The problem with situations like rising Stock Brokers is that they often rely on abstract models (which may or may not have any meaning) and/or the contacts through which they were getting their info are not as potent as they once were.
Because that was the argument presented to me:
Me: "You are saying that these agencies will read between the lines to help Bush become "the emperor" of the United States Empire?"
DocRuby: "I'm not talking aboug "reading between the lines". I'm talking about writing policy as a smokescreen for the real agenda, to put nukes in space. Michael Griffin was a Star Wars scientist, and now NASA is putting Star Wars tech in space."
I wish I was making this stuff up.
There is a certain logic to this. How many times have "experts" told us screwy nonsense, and had lousy track records, and yet the public at large retained them as experts? Sometimes, the untrained may be able to see things that the supposedly well-trained can't.
;)
Or to put it another way, it all becomes a set of probabilities. If person X has guessed the outcome of something (say, a football game) correctly 80% of the time, then you're safer betting on his predictions than you are betting on expert Y who is only correct 30% of the time. If you aggregate the probabilities and successes, you should be able to develop a model with a high probability of being correct. You'll never be able to gain 100% accuracy, but that's just the nature of the Universe.
Forget it. The last time we discussed this, the thread was overrun by DocRuby and his galant band of Bush haters. This thread has already devolved into the same sort of nonsense. Which is really too bad, because the document actually says is that Nuclear Power in Space is a Good Thing(TM) for space exploration. But too many people are busy making nonsensical claims about "reading between the lines" or it being evidence of the real agenda, which isn't actually contained in the document. (WTF?)
*sigh*
Looks like they already modded you down. And so it begins.
Just in case you want to catch up on the last time we discussed this:
0 9/1333248
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/
Google is your friend.
You would lose that wager. 80%+ of the technology that makes web browsers tick is required just to show you a blasted web page. The standardized APIs allow a good way for JavaScript to then make those pages interactive. Not too many sites are JavaScript-free these days.
What I think you're trying to say, is that features above and beyond the W3C standards are:
1. Not useful
2. Poor attempts at lockin
3. Dangerous
If Microsoft would just stick to the bloody standards, we'd all be better off. Unfortunately, they're still in 1995 mode, trying to beat Netscape at their own propertization game. It wouldn't surprise me if the requests for DOM 2 Events support were STILL ignored in this "final" release of IE7. *grumble* And Microsoft thinks developers will like them because of this?
One word: Brillant!