Must admit that I really don't think the U.N. has done any of the above listed items "well". To even list War Crimes Prosecution with Rwanda when the U.N. had forces which just stood by and watched. Is like kind of like the kettle calling the pot black.
AIDS...I think we have a lousy record.
Protection children and refugees (like raping them?)
Food aid, usually resulting in bait for refugees to be slaughtered by rival warlords.
Funny, many of the peace-keeping missions you mention seem to be constant crisis' so I am not sure I can call them "successful".
Even more funny, so you blame the oil-for-food scandal not on the U.N. but the U.S. & U.K., doesn't matter that the U.N. President's son was quite involved.
The U.N. is a joke. It is an organization that gives a dictator or totalitarian government the equivalent say as a free democracy like Australia or India. Making one man's vote equal to millions. I think the U.N. is one of the worst things to happen because it has no requirements that the member nations have decency. This is why we can have nations like Sudan and Syria slated to be head of councils of well-being.
It's like putting crack dealers in charge of the school's "Don't Do Drugs" program.
For example, everyone is up in arms over the corn usage for bio-fuels. Okay, so corn goes up in price, and the claim is people are starving and we're using food for oil. First off, the issue of starvation has never been one of lack of food. The real issue has always been distributing that food to those who need it. (Often impaired by geo-political issues.)
So let's use our brains and consider alternatives. There was an article, I think it was even posted on Slashdot regarding the use of algae/pondscum to create ethanol. Why not use one environmental problem to resolve another?
One of the major environmental issues of our day is sewage waste. Much money has been expended on waste water treatment facilities in the western world. And they're pretty effective. The main issue with these facilities is that the waste water is high in nutrients. When dumped into the natural waterway systems (rivers, lakes, oceans) it often causes algae blooms from the over-fertilization. So let's combine all of this...
We can build large mile square "ponds" designed to encourage algae growth. Fill them with our nutrient rich wastewater. The algae will consume the nutrients of the water, be harvested for conversion of biomass to fuel. Now, not only do we have a renewable energy source, (without causing starvation)...we also have a means to eliminate even further our biological waste.
So with a little thought and a lot less PANIC and fear-mongering, we can achieve much. The worst thing for the environment, is a brainless environmentalist running around like a chicken with it's head cut-off screaming the "sky is falling, the sky is falling". The best solution for the environment is a rational, thoughtful, open process that encourages innovation and ingenuity.
Sorry, but ICANN just sucks. I mean it's one of the domains that is most desired by a great many of users. They refuse. No, it's not censorship. It's zoning and marketing.
It would simply create a "redlight district" on the web. That doesn't mean porn wouldn't exist anywhere. Just as strip bars and what not exist outside of redlight districts. However, most such entities will locate in a red light district so that they can be more easily found. (And yes, more easily avoided.)
I'd wager $100 bucks the ICANN voters got a nice bit of cash under-the-table from several of the major porn industry.
Of course, where as a large portion of the the people want and.xxx domain. We get crud like.museum instead. !@#$%
Not too mention most have color TVs, cable, and DVD players.
In fact, when I grew up, all the people I knew who had Atari's were on welfare. Go figure...
I had a tenant who received section-8 housing support. She had to pay me $22 of the $700/month rent. This was for a 2-bedroom apartment (heat included) a block from the water in a nice neighborhood. And I was lucky if she paid it half the time. She collected disability for bad knees. But didn't have much problem climbing three flights of stairs. She then collected child support...
Well, I should have known something was up. A number of channels disappeared a few days back. Including my favorite station 67 which I listened to 90% of the time.
Frankly, my wife never liked the country stations. And that was the one station I listened too so the value of Sirius for me has become pretty low. Maybe they will replace it after the merger. A few other shows I like are on XM. So maybe we'll get those too.
"That argument falters, however, when one considers that five of the 11 nations that lead the U.S. in per capita broadband penetration, including Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Canada, have significantly lower population densities than the U.S."
Comments like this further prove to me the need for better analysis. For example, it mentions that Canada has lower population densities. But it fails to mention that the vast amount of Canada's population is in the southern region. So if it leaves 90% of it's northern regions neglected it would still reach the vast majority of it's population. I believe the same is true for Iceland, Finland, Norway, & Sweden. All of those nations are northern territories in which the vast majority of the territory is unpopulated or sparsley populated.
America is NOT a nation with a LOT of empty territory. We have a large amount of territory, but we have population spread throughout most of it. So what we get is large areas of low or mild population density. That makes the process of rolling out broadband a bit more challenging.
Okay, let us consider some facts. Statistical comparisons are only relevant within the frame of their structure. (ie: When comparing the population of a nation to the percentage that have broadband access the U.S. ranks seemingly on the low-end.)
However, such a statistical relationship being used to insinuate that the U.S. is back-watered or behind where it should be (as is commonly done with such reports) is bad science for the reason that not all facts are evaluated in such statistical analysis.
For example, the population density of the various nations surveyed is not taken into account. To insult Alaska because it has a lower % broadband access than NYC is misleading. Alaska has a vastly larger amount of physical territory to cover than NYC. NYC has millions of residents where as Alaska has about 1/2 a million residents. To ignore the fact that much more cable, wiring and technology is needed to service that 1/2 million Alaskan residents compared to serving 10 million NYC residents is inappropriate.
England has most of it's population in a few centers, and it's overall land mass is fairly small. Although the highest density of population in the U.S. is in our cities we have large population groups spread in between and in our suburbs. These things need to be considered. There are a number of factors. That said, being 12th isn't that bad. I'd expect a smaller industrialized modernized nation to have a higher adoption. Some place like Taiwan or S. Korea I'd expect to have higher access. Less territory is covered, most of the population is in a close range.
I don't expect a nation with a dispersed population and the amount of land territory as the U.S. to place in the very top.
I've been wanting to see a good movie for the past 6 months. In fact, I keep finding myself wanting to go see a movie and week after week scrolling thru and finding nothing of interest to watch. The few movies of interest have often either been limited releases not in my area (One Night with the King & Pan's Labrynth) or disappointments - or both in the matter of those two films.
I've longed for a good film. That said, I've found myself having wasted my good hard earned $$$ on some really just not worth films. Most of which I knew were at best "rentals" but well, as far as I was concerned there wasn't a film outside of that rental category in a while.
I think the last movie I wanted to see, and saw, and left the theatre thinking it was worth it was Adam Sandler's "Click". (Which if you haven't seen it is actually quite profound and terrifying in it's concept.)
I feel as if I've been relegated to movies like "The Wickerman", "The Fountain", "Because I Said So", etc. And to put it mildly, when I wind up looking back on most of the films I've seen in the theate and list "Because I said So" as one of the more enjoyable ones. Than something is royally !@#$% with the film industry.
Now, let me clarify, I don't mind good drama. But I don't find much reason to watch it on a big screen. Renting it from Netflix is good enough for me. I like going to the theatre for movies that are either spectacular or fantastical. And I don't just mean explosions and effects. They need a matching story. And we've just not seen that for a while.
The second half of 2006 was uber-depressing for film fans. Thankfully 2007 looks a bit more hopeful (ie: 300, TMNT, Transformers, Rise of the Surfer, and the list goes on). I am hopeful that I will get to actually go see some movies again. But trust me MPAA you are NOT losing money due to piracy but rather due to the horrendous crap you've released.
I mean, when I can't even find a good stupid movie to go and enjoy (ie: Wild Hogs, which I will likely see as mere stupid brain fodder) and even that caliber film is absent from the theatres. How can you expect to lose money to piracy. Most of the films released in late 2006 aren't even worth the time to pirate.
AND DEAR MPAA, why do you feel it necessary to release the few good films you make in the year between May - September. I mean, when we are able to do numerous other activities outdoors. You release the good films. When we are cooped up during the winter with nothing to do and would like to get out and want to see a fun movie...we're left for nigh 4+ months with nothing but crap.
Further more, there were other scientists who's work could have supported Galileo's. Thus absolving the lack of evidence. However, Galileo being quite the egotist had essentially criticized his fellow scientists and stated their work to be wrong.
Therefore there was not enough evidence to move it from theory to fact. Galileo essentially called everyone morons including the Pope who actually prior had been supportive of Galileo. Essentially, Galileo was refusing to allow his work to be peer reviewed. And the other articles of teh day that supported his work, Galileo had personally peer reviewed and called utterly and foolishly wrong.
Ironically, centuries later history records this as the "Chuch repressing science" and is oft used as an example. When in truth, no such thing indeed occurred. Furthermore, if anything, it was ensuring due process of peer reviewed science. The catholic church has an understanding that if their interpretation does not equate to the real world then they must have mis-interpreted and their interpretation can be changed. Because obviously God's creation speaks more accurately than man's interpretation. However, for such a change to occur qualifying officially evidence must be provided. This is where Galileo failed...mainly to his ego.
(ie: I think it's funny because this same thing happens in scientific circles quite often today)
I am really sick of patents. I do not think this is an idea worthy of a patent. Maybe because I've had the same idea. Who knows...
I think that the usability on a phone is okay, but I really thought the concept could be better applied to the iPod. Giving the user a full screen in front and and the virtual jog wheel on the back. Anyways, at least now that it's here in the annals of slashdot that will hopefully provide some prior art concept and prevent more stupid patents.
I swear, soon the patent office is going to grant a patent on "the wheel". Yes, the thousands and thousands of year old invention now patented by "Good Year".
I'm not sure I'd consider them a major provider. They're kind of more akin to Sam Adams. Not a mega-brewery but not quite a micro-brewery anymore either.
But I could be mistaken, but compared to the big three: Cingular/AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint/Nextel
Just looked it up. And the big three are in the 50+ million. T-Mobile is at 25 million. Then Alltell at 11 million and the rest under 10 million. So it kind of sits there in the middle of the majors and the minors.
I've seen all these posts trashing the iPhone. Some of the criticisms are quite valid. (Cingular lock-in) A great many I find extremely stupid in that they are rants about false facts. (ie: 2 hour battery life when Apple stated a 5 hour)
The Good:
- sleek compact design
- OSX (strong system foundation)
- Responsiveness, which appeared to be quick, simple, and functional
- Potential for innovative multi-finger work-flows. Paging thru with a finger slide is much more effective than back/forward buttons. And I am sure developers will come up with even better ideas.
- Strong user interface. Effective use of drill/slide down menus and interfaces.
- Ability to utilize widgets (expect to see numerous 3rd party widget mini-apps)
- Strong browser support on a portable PDA/Phone device.
The Mixed:
- 4/8gig = GREAT for a PDA/cell phone, but not so hot for an digital media player. I think many would like to see a 3rd model that albeit slightly larger offers and 60gig+ drive.
- announcement 6 months before product available. Officially they did this because they were going to the FCC and once done the major designs would be public info. Most new phone products are discovered this way so this makes sense as a valid answer. This also gives Apple 6 months to potentially improve any flaws. Perhaps add HSDPA service.
- GPS, is this available or not and to what extent? Is it celluar location good enough to let you know there is a Starbuck within a 1/4 mile but not good enough for driver navigation. A popular app with PDA devices.
- Price, $499 expensive for a phone. But about the same as a PDA Phone + iPod Nano. In fact, if I recall correctly iPod's were quite expensive when they were first released. I recall like $399.
The Bad:
- iPhone Cingular biggest flaw. This is probably the #1 block to sales. And the likely reason I won't have an iPhone anytime soon.
- Touchscreens provide no tactile feel. No matter how accurate and intuitive no way exists to easily utilize the touch screen without looking at it. You can't feel the buttons.
- no SD/min-SD/micro-SD support
- Edge no HSDPA, but the final specks may not be there. Furthermore, this may have been a marketing blunder. HSPDA sounds lame marketing wise. Where as "Edge" has a sound that convey's leading edge technology even if it's far from it. I'll cross my fingers. But it's a shame this isn't available on an EvDO capable network.
- Exchance Server access is key, but they are providing PUSH thru Yahoo! Access to Exchange Servers may come later.
- Screen easily scratched.
There are some solutions to these. I have a touchscreen on my PDA. I bought an old Palm screen protector and cut it to size. I did the same for my mom's iPod.
Another issue that could have some intelligent solutions is the lack of tactile dialing. I've been saying for years an easy solution would be to build a touch screen phone flat and then provide a leather cover (These were common for PDA's a few years back.) But incorporate some new technologies. Namely, a dial-pad and a bluetooth connection. Then your iPhone case is connected to your phone and allows you to dial under the table. In fact, you could remove it and have it function as a full keyboard. Why no one develops this crap I do not know.
I am avowed that most companies don't have a single designer with much more than half a brain. Apple, I think actually has better designs than most but only come about 80%-90% of the way.
Okay, really...I understand...but I will hate Apple for this.
Cingular = only major GSM provider in USA (also = suckage)
I mean, I understand why Apple would go with a GSM provider first since Europe is GSM and this allows them to make one phone to sell in two markets.
But man, for a phone that downloads I'd think they'd be better off with a CDMA carrier (Sprint or Verizon with their EvDO). Verizon desperately needs a good phone. Currently, most all of Verizon's phones are suckage. But I imagine Verizon would see it as competition for their VCast. (Verizon sadly is a bit too greedy. They've got one if not the best network in the world. Fast, everywhere...even in the middle of corn fields, and reliable. But I imagine Sprint would have been a good choice.
So I hear a 2-yr exclusive agreement. WTF was Apple thinking. This will be great for Cingular but suck for Apple. 2 yrs in the tech gadget world is like 20 yrs in the auto industry.
Sucks...I'd love to see this phone available for other carriers. But they just did an iPaq. Who released their phone for one carrier. It didn't do so well. Had it been available for Verizon I'd have bought it. I think these businesses fail to realize that it's the network that tends to be the biggest draw not the cell phones itself. Mainly because most of us don't want to dish out $195 to cancel our service early and then dish out another $250 on a new gadget phone.
*sighs*
Well hopefully Apple will release the new iPod. I've refused to buy an iPod until a) it's widescreen b) 100gig
With all the much better articles denied we still seem to get a glut of stupid posts like this. Okay, from a designer's perspective. There was no substance. It was so light and IMHO no real arguments to support the author's standpoint except for Wii. Yes, I think it's clear that Nintendo's strategy for the Wii was a good move and innovative. It's going to appeal to a lot of people, particularly mom's who see it as a much more athletic alternative.
But the comments regarding the PS3 & Xbox 360. And why the 360 is going to be the loser. No real supportive arguments were made. How much superior is the PS3 hardware? It's funny, because the comments that are general said about the PS3 is that it is the new generation's Xbox. It's big, overly priced, has more power but the game quality isn't taking advantage of it and the game play is eh. If anything, that would make me believe the PS3 might be the second. Except that Nintendo's Wii came out with an innovative strategy that I think will put it on top of the PS3.
Then there's the profibility. Who's losing money and how much? Sure, all PS3's are sold out...right now. But in a year when those are stocked is anyone really going to want to pay $600+ for one? Will the masses? Rumor has it that the 360 is entering profibility. This allows Microsoft to cut the prices. Economically, I am not sure SONY has the room for a loss. If the PS3 fails to do well it could spell doom. Even second fiddle might not be enough for the beleaguered SONY. Then what?
That said.....what I was really hoping to hear from this article was in regards to designing/programming games. And what advantage each system has in that regard.
In truth, we technically don't even have the right to carry home that kitchen knife we bought at Target.
I've been quite interested in a march for the right to bear arms with on Washington D.C. with all the marchers wielding swords. It'd be kind of interesting, and one of the rare bi-partisan marches. We'd have a bunch of bowie knife toting redneck conservatives marching with a bunch of sword wielding renaissance fair liberals.
Actually, there is a difference between what was referred to as arms and what was referred to as artillary. U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms. But they do not have a right to keep artillary which would include such things as: missiles, bazookas, tanks, etc.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I've noticed there has been a trend to re-structure the sentence of the 2nd Ammendment and interpret it on the basis of a "well regulated militia" and then equate this to the National Guard and thus declare the 2nd Ammendment fullfilled.
This is incorrect, and is not what is said above. There are two aspects to the above statement. 1) that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stae 2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
What we have is a stacking of concepts. A militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Militias draw from the people, both arms and manpower. Therefore, it is necessary for the people to retain the right to bear arms or there is no means to call up a militia.
If you remove the right to bear arms from U.S. citizens then you have no means to call up and organize a militia. You will have a bunch of unarmed men unable to defend their country. This is well understood within the context of the Constitution being written. A simple test can be done to express such.
Apply both interpretations, which one would fit and fulfill the needs of the time. If we apply the traditional interpretation everything fits. However, if we apply the re-interpretation you find yourself in a place in which the American Revolution would never have existed. Let' remove all guns from ownership by the colonials. The only guns are now owned and in the hands of the British Army and the regulated militias under the British. The colonials now are completely unarmed facing both the regulars of the British Army and the militias under the British.
Clearly there is no way that this was the intention of the authors of the Constitution. And if the courts ever decided to re-interpret such ammendments it is the right of every arms bearing American and the duty of every U.S. soldier (if you've ever served you swore an oath to protect this country from powers both foreign and domestic) to kill those judges and remove that segment of government from power.
The 2nd ammendment is our assurety against tyranny. It is the last and final line in our "checks and balances" within the government.
Nope...he's already put most of the billions into his charity. Then decreed that upon his death they are to essentially expend all the billions. I think he's more interested in fame than money.
What would be interesting is if he "opened" the door to special interest groups.
Want to meet with the President for an hour? Donate a million dollars to the deficit reduction fund. And just not to waste the President's time. First visit is a million, each additional visit is $10 million.
For innumerous jokes about constantly having to reboot the government. And the need for constant government upgrades.
Let's forget open-source software for any public activities.
Er...uh...*cowers*
On the flip side, special interest groups declare bankruptancy. Groups claim they became ineffective because when ever they tried to buy Bill Gates he declined expressing that he already had enough headaches trying to spend the billions he already has.
Slashdot Mirror
Must admit that I really don't think the U.N. has done any of the above listed items "well". To even list War Crimes Prosecution with Rwanda when the U.N. had forces which just stood by and watched. Is like kind of like the kettle calling the pot black.
AIDS...I think we have a lousy record.
Protection children and refugees (like raping them?)
Food aid, usually resulting in bait for refugees to be slaughtered by rival warlords.
Funny, many of the peace-keeping missions you mention seem to be constant crisis' so I am not sure I can call them "successful".
Even more funny, so you blame the oil-for-food scandal not on the U.N. but the U.S. & U.K., doesn't matter that the U.N. President's son was quite involved.
The U.N. is a joke. It is an organization that gives a dictator or totalitarian government the equivalent say as a free democracy like Australia or India. Making one man's vote equal to millions. I think the U.N. is one of the worst things to happen because it has no requirements that the member nations have decency. This is why we can have nations like Sudan and Syria slated to be head of councils of well-being.
It's like putting crack dealers in charge of the school's "Don't Do Drugs" program.
For example, everyone is up in arms over the corn usage for bio-fuels. Okay, so corn goes up in price, and the claim is people are starving and we're using food for oil. First off, the issue of starvation has never been one of lack of food. The real issue has always been distributing that food to those who need it. (Often impaired by geo-political issues.)
So let's use our brains and consider alternatives. There was an article, I think it was even posted on Slashdot regarding the use of algae/pondscum to create ethanol. Why not use one environmental problem to resolve another?
One of the major environmental issues of our day is sewage waste. Much money has been expended on waste water treatment facilities in the western world. And they're pretty effective. The main issue with these facilities is that the waste water is high in nutrients. When dumped into the natural waterway systems (rivers, lakes, oceans) it often causes algae blooms from the over-fertilization. So let's combine all of this...
We can build large mile square "ponds" designed to encourage algae growth. Fill them with our nutrient rich wastewater. The algae will consume the nutrients of the water, be harvested for conversion of biomass to fuel. Now, not only do we have a renewable energy source, (without causing starvation)...we also have a means to eliminate even further our biological waste.
So with a little thought and a lot less PANIC and fear-mongering, we can achieve much. The worst thing for the environment, is a brainless environmentalist running around like a chicken with it's head cut-off screaming the "sky is falling, the sky is falling". The best solution for the environment is a rational, thoughtful, open process that encourages innovation and ingenuity.
- Saj
Sorry, but ICANN just sucks. I mean it's one of the domains that is most desired by a great many of users. They refuse. No, it's not censorship. It's zoning and marketing.
.xxx domain. We get crud like .museum instead. !@#$%
It would simply create a "redlight district" on the web. That doesn't mean porn wouldn't exist anywhere. Just as strip bars and what not exist outside of redlight districts. However, most such entities will locate in a red light district so that they can be more easily found. (And yes, more easily avoided.)
I'd wager $100 bucks the ICANN voters got a nice bit of cash under-the-table from several of the major porn industry.
Of course, where as a large portion of the the people want and
If they want to control my HDTV...then they can buy it for me!
Not too mention most have color TVs, cable, and DVD players.
In fact, when I grew up, all the people I knew who had Atari's were on welfare. Go figure...
I had a tenant who received section-8 housing support. She had to pay me $22 of the $700/month rent. This was for a 2-bedroom apartment (heat included) a block from the water in a nice neighborhood. And I was lucky if she paid it half the time. She collected disability for bad knees. But didn't have much problem climbing three flights of stairs. She then collected child support...
Her real issue...was attitude...not poverty.
Well, I should have known something was up. A number of channels disappeared a few days back. Including my favorite station 67 which I listened to 90% of the time.
Frankly, my wife never liked the country stations. And that was the one station I listened too so the value of Sirius for me has become pretty low. Maybe they will replace it after the merger. A few other shows I like are on XM. So maybe we'll get those too.
I guess I can only hope...
"That argument falters, however, when one considers that five of the 11 nations that lead the U.S. in per capita broadband penetration, including Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Canada, have significantly lower population densities than the U.S."
Comments like this further prove to me the need for better analysis. For example, it mentions that Canada has lower population densities. But it fails to mention that the vast amount of Canada's population is in the southern region. So if it leaves 90% of it's northern regions neglected it would still reach the vast majority of it's population. I believe the same is true for Iceland, Finland, Norway, & Sweden. All of those nations are northern territories in which the vast majority of the territory is unpopulated or sparsley populated.
America is NOT a nation with a LOT of empty territory. We have a large amount of territory, but we have population spread throughout most of it. So what we get is large areas of low or mild population density. That makes the process of rolling out broadband a bit more challenging.
- Saj
1. White Lies
2. Damn Lies
3. Statistics
Okay, let us consider some facts. Statistical comparisons are only relevant within the frame of their structure. (ie: When comparing the population of a nation to the percentage that have broadband access the U.S. ranks seemingly on the low-end.)
However, such a statistical relationship being used to insinuate that the U.S. is back-watered or behind where it should be (as is commonly done with such reports) is bad science for the reason that not all facts are evaluated in such statistical analysis.
For example, the population density of the various nations surveyed is not taken into account. To insult Alaska because it has a lower % broadband access than NYC is misleading. Alaska has a vastly larger amount of physical territory to cover than NYC. NYC has millions of residents where as Alaska has about 1/2 a million residents. To ignore the fact that much more cable, wiring and technology is needed to service that 1/2 million Alaskan residents compared to serving 10 million NYC residents is inappropriate.
England has most of it's population in a few centers, and it's overall land mass is fairly small. Although the highest density of population in the U.S. is in our cities we have large population groups spread in between and in our suburbs. These things need to be considered. There are a number of factors. That said, being 12th isn't that bad. I'd expect a smaller industrialized modernized nation to have a higher adoption. Some place like Taiwan or S. Korea I'd expect to have higher access. Less territory is covered, most of the population is in a close range.
I don't expect a nation with a dispersed population and the amount of land territory as the U.S. to place in the very top.
I've been wanting to see a good movie for the past 6 months. In fact, I keep finding myself wanting to go see a movie and week after week scrolling thru and finding nothing of interest to watch. The few movies of interest have often either been limited releases not in my area (One Night with the King & Pan's Labrynth) or disappointments - or both in the matter of those two films.
I've longed for a good film. That said, I've found myself having wasted my good hard earned $$$ on some really just not worth films. Most of which I knew were at best "rentals" but well, as far as I was concerned there wasn't a film outside of that rental category in a while.
I think the last movie I wanted to see, and saw, and left the theatre thinking it was worth it was Adam Sandler's "Click". (Which if you haven't seen it is actually quite profound and terrifying in it's concept.)
I feel as if I've been relegated to movies like "The Wickerman", "The Fountain", "Because I Said So", etc. And to put it mildly, when I wind up looking back on most of the films I've seen in the theate and list "Because I said So" as one of the more enjoyable ones. Than something is royally !@#$% with the film industry.
Now, let me clarify, I don't mind good drama. But I don't find much reason to watch it on a big screen. Renting it from Netflix is good enough for me. I like going to the theatre for movies that are either spectacular or fantastical. And I don't just mean explosions and effects. They need a matching story. And we've just not seen that for a while.
The second half of 2006 was uber-depressing for film fans. Thankfully 2007 looks a bit more hopeful (ie: 300, TMNT, Transformers, Rise of the Surfer, and the list goes on). I am hopeful that I will get to actually go see some movies again. But trust me MPAA you are NOT losing money due to piracy but rather due to the horrendous crap you've released.
I mean, when I can't even find a good stupid movie to go and enjoy (ie: Wild Hogs, which I will likely see as mere stupid brain fodder) and even that caliber film is absent from the theatres. How can you expect to lose money to piracy. Most of the films released in late 2006 aren't even worth the time to pirate.
AND DEAR MPAA, why do you feel it necessary to release the few good films you make in the year between May - September. I mean, when we are able to do numerous other activities outdoors. You release the good films. When we are cooped up during the winter with nothing to do and would like to get out and want to see a fun movie...we're left for nigh 4+ months with nothing but crap.
????
PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT LOSS
Further more, there were other scientists who's work could have supported Galileo's. Thus absolving the lack of evidence. However, Galileo being quite the egotist had essentially criticized his fellow scientists and stated their work to be wrong.
Therefore there was not enough evidence to move it from theory to fact. Galileo essentially called everyone morons including the Pope who actually prior had been supportive of Galileo. Essentially, Galileo was refusing to allow his work to be peer reviewed. And the other articles of teh day that supported his work, Galileo had personally peer reviewed and called utterly and foolishly wrong.
Ironically, centuries later history records this as the "Chuch repressing science" and is oft used as an example. When in truth, no such thing indeed occurred. Furthermore, if anything, it was ensuring due process of peer reviewed science. The catholic church has an understanding that if their interpretation does not equate to the real world then they must have mis-interpreted and their interpretation can be changed. Because obviously God's creation speaks more accurately than man's interpretation. However, for such a change to occur qualifying officially evidence must be provided. This is where Galileo failed...mainly to his ego.
(ie: I think it's funny because this same thing happens in scientific circles quite often today)
I am really sick of patents. I do not think this is an idea worthy of a patent. Maybe because I've had the same idea. Who knows...
I think that the usability on a phone is okay, but I really thought the concept could be better applied to the iPod. Giving the user a full screen in front and and the virtual jog wheel on the back. Anyways, at least now that it's here in the annals of slashdot that will hopefully provide some prior art concept and prevent more stupid patents.
I swear, soon the patent office is going to grant a patent on "the wheel". Yes, the thousands and thousands of year old invention now patented by "Good Year".
That's fine...that's what 99% of us want in a cellphone/PDA.
And I read that you'd be able to use your favorite Widgets, etc. So that seems to mean there is potential to expand functionality.
Frankly, yes, it's possible to install Linux on an Xbox. It's great feat...er, but I'd rather play Xbox games on my Xbox.
I guess asking for both networks....is too much?
Most Americans don't leave the country regularly. Most Americans use CDMA networks.
I'm not sure I'd consider them a major provider. They're kind of more akin to Sam Adams. Not a mega-brewery but not quite a micro-brewery anymore either.
r k_operators_of_the_Americas#United_States
But I could be mistaken, but compared to the big three: Cingular/AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint/Nextel
Just looked it up. And the big three are in the 50+ million. T-Mobile is at 25 million. Then Alltell at 11 million and the rest under 10 million. So it kind of sits there in the middle of the majors and the minors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_netwo
Why I think the iPhone will succed:
I've seen all these posts trashing the iPhone. Some of the criticisms are quite valid. (Cingular lock-in) A great many I find extremely stupid in that they are rants about false facts. (ie: 2 hour battery life when Apple stated a 5 hour)
The Good:
- sleek compact design
- OSX (strong system foundation)
- Responsiveness, which appeared to be quick, simple, and functional
- Potential for innovative multi-finger work-flows. Paging thru with a finger slide is much more effective than back/forward buttons. And I am sure developers will come up with even better ideas.
- Strong user interface. Effective use of drill/slide down menus and interfaces.
- Ability to utilize widgets (expect to see numerous 3rd party widget mini-apps)
- Strong browser support on a portable PDA/Phone device.
The Mixed:
- 4/8gig = GREAT for a PDA/cell phone, but not so hot for an digital media player. I think many would like to see a 3rd model that albeit slightly larger offers and 60gig+ drive.
- announcement 6 months before product available. Officially they did this because they were going to the FCC and once done the major designs would be public info. Most new phone products are discovered this way so this makes sense as a valid answer. This also gives Apple 6 months to potentially improve any flaws. Perhaps add HSDPA service.
- GPS, is this available or not and to what extent? Is it celluar location good enough to let you know there is a Starbuck within a 1/4 mile but not good enough for driver navigation. A popular app with PDA devices.
- Price, $499 expensive for a phone. But about the same as a PDA Phone + iPod Nano. In fact, if I recall correctly iPod's were quite expensive when they were first released. I recall like $399.
The Bad:
- iPhone Cingular biggest flaw. This is probably the #1 block to sales. And the likely reason I won't have an iPhone anytime soon.
- Touchscreens provide no tactile feel. No matter how accurate and intuitive no way exists to easily utilize the touch screen without looking at it. You can't feel the buttons.
- no SD/min-SD/micro-SD support
- Edge no HSDPA, but the final specks may not be there. Furthermore, this may have been a marketing blunder. HSPDA sounds lame marketing wise. Where as "Edge" has a sound that convey's leading edge technology even if it's far from it. I'll cross my fingers. But it's a shame this isn't available on an EvDO capable network.
- Exchance Server access is key, but they are providing PUSH thru Yahoo! Access to Exchange Servers may come later.
- Screen easily scratched.
There are some solutions to these. I have a touchscreen on my PDA. I bought an old Palm screen protector and cut it to size. I did the same for my mom's iPod.
Another issue that could have some intelligent solutions is the lack of tactile dialing. I've been saying for years an easy solution would be to build a touch screen phone flat and then provide a leather cover (These were common for PDA's a few years back.) But incorporate some new technologies. Namely, a dial-pad and a bluetooth connection. Then your iPhone case is connected to your phone and allows you to dial under the table. In fact, you could remove it and have it function as a full keyboard. Why no one develops this crap I do not know.
I am avowed that most companies don't have a single designer with much more than half a brain. Apple, I think actually has better designs than most but only come about 80%-90% of the way.
OSX built on BSD ('nix) core...
Okay, really...I understand...but I will hate Apple for this.
Cingular = only major GSM provider in USA (also = suckage)
I mean, I understand why Apple would go with a GSM provider first since Europe is GSM and this allows them to make one phone to sell in two markets.
But man, for a phone that downloads I'd think they'd be better off with a CDMA carrier (Sprint or Verizon with their EvDO). Verizon desperately needs a good phone. Currently, most all of Verizon's phones are suckage. But I imagine Verizon would see it as competition for their VCast. (Verizon sadly is a bit too greedy. They've got one if not the best network in the world. Fast, everywhere...even in the middle of corn fields, and reliable. But I imagine Sprint would have been a good choice.
So I hear a 2-yr exclusive agreement. WTF was Apple thinking. This will be great for Cingular but suck for Apple. 2 yrs in the tech gadget world is like 20 yrs in the auto industry.
Sucks...I'd love to see this phone available for other carriers. But they just did an iPaq. Who released their phone for one carrier. It didn't do so well. Had it been available for Verizon I'd have bought it. I think these businesses fail to realize that it's the network that tends to be the biggest draw not the cell phones itself. Mainly because most of us don't want to dish out $195 to cancel our service early and then dish out another $250 on a new gadget phone.
*sighs*
Well hopefully Apple will release the new iPod. I've refused to buy an iPod until a) it's widescreen b) 100gig
With all the much better articles denied we still seem to get a glut of stupid posts like this. Okay, from a designer's perspective. There was no substance. It was so light and IMHO no real arguments to support the author's standpoint except for Wii. Yes, I think it's clear that Nintendo's strategy for the Wii was a good move and innovative. It's going to appeal to a lot of people, particularly mom's who see it as a much more athletic alternative.
But the comments regarding the PS3 & Xbox 360. And why the 360 is going to be the loser. No real supportive arguments were made. How much superior is the PS3 hardware? It's funny, because the comments that are general said about the PS3 is that it is the new generation's Xbox. It's big, overly priced, has more power but the game quality isn't taking advantage of it and the game play is eh. If anything, that would make me believe the PS3 might be the second. Except that Nintendo's Wii came out with an innovative strategy that I think will put it on top of the PS3.
Then there's the profibility. Who's losing money and how much? Sure, all PS3's are sold out...right now. But in a year when those are stocked is anyone really going to want to pay $600+ for one? Will the masses? Rumor has it that the 360 is entering profibility. This allows Microsoft to cut the prices. Economically, I am not sure SONY has the room for a loss. If the PS3 fails to do well it could spell doom. Even second fiddle might not be enough for the beleaguered SONY. Then what?
That said.....what I was really hoping to hear from this article was in regards to designing/programming games. And what advantage each system has in that regard.
- Saj
We should....
In truth, we technically don't even have the right to carry home that kitchen knife we bought at Target.
I've been quite interested in a march for the right to bear arms with on Washington D.C. with all the marchers wielding swords. It'd be kind of interesting, and one of the rare bi-partisan marches. We'd have a bunch of bowie knife toting redneck conservatives marching with a bunch of sword wielding renaissance fair liberals.
What a beautiful thing it'd be...
Actually, there is a difference between what was referred to as arms and what was referred to as artillary. U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms. But they do not have a right to keep artillary which would include such things as: missiles, bazookas, tanks, etc.
WAYYY TOO FUNNY!!!!
10 Kudos for the above comment! WoW that was great!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I've noticed there has been a trend to re-structure the sentence of the 2nd Ammendment and interpret it on the basis of a "well regulated militia" and then equate this to the National Guard and thus declare the 2nd Ammendment fullfilled.
This is incorrect, and is not what is said above. There are two aspects to the above statement.
1) that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stae
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
What we have is a stacking of concepts. A militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Militias draw from the people, both arms and manpower. Therefore, it is necessary for the people to retain the right to bear arms or there is no means to call up a militia.
If you remove the right to bear arms from U.S. citizens then you have no means to call up and organize a militia. You will have a bunch of unarmed men unable to defend their country. This is well understood within the context of the Constitution being written. A simple test can be done to express such.
Apply both interpretations, which one would fit and fulfill the needs of the time. If we apply the traditional interpretation everything fits. However, if we apply the re-interpretation you find yourself in a place in which the American Revolution would never have existed. Let' remove all guns from ownership by the colonials. The only guns are now owned and in the hands of the British Army and the regulated militias under the British. The colonials now are completely unarmed facing both the regulars of the British Army and the militias under the British.
Clearly there is no way that this was the intention of the authors of the Constitution. And if the courts ever decided to re-interpret such ammendments it is the right of every arms bearing American and the duty of every U.S. soldier (if you've ever served you swore an oath to protect this country from powers both foreign and domestic) to kill those judges and remove that segment of government from power.
The 2nd ammendment is our assurety against tyranny. It is the last and final line in our "checks and balances" within the government.
- Saj
Nope...he's already put most of the billions into his charity. Then decreed that upon his death they are to essentially expend all the billions. I think he's more interested in fame than money.
What would be interesting is if he "opened" the door to special interest groups.
Want to meet with the President for an hour? Donate a million dollars to the deficit reduction fund. And just not to waste the President's time. First visit is a million, each additional visit is $10 million.
It'd be fun...
For innumerous jokes about constantly having to reboot the government. And the need for constant government upgrades.
Let's forget open-source software for any public activities.
Er...uh...*cowers*
On the flip side, special interest groups declare bankruptancy. Groups claim they became ineffective because when ever they tried to buy Bill Gates he declined expressing that he already had enough headaches trying to spend the billions he already has.
I wonder if we could sue for libel?