Nemesis was a steaming pile of crap. Everything Trek since the death of Rodenberry has been crap (last 2 seasons of Next Generation on). Please Please Please stop flogging this dead horse franchise while I still have respect for the vast canon of work created before Berman was hired to milk Paramount's cash cow to death.
I went on a trip to with a buddy a year ago, I had a $300 1-year old 2.1 MP Canon Powershot s110, he brought a brand-new $1200 5MP Sony.
Every picture I took was better than his. We even swapped cameras and matched the settings after the first day reviewing the pictures to eliminate those variables, and the little Canon Elph outperformed in every shot - most noticeably in color quality. In fact, the only advantages the Sony had was a faster shutter response and better optical zoom.
I've now taken over 1300 pictures with the Canon s110, and it's tip-top. Every time I go to pick up some prints at Wolf / Ritz, the guys behind the counter ask me what camera I use.
As far as the friend's Sony? He sold it on eBay and bought a Canon s400.
In '93 I worked for a Department of Defense research lab in Austin. While I debugged FORTRAN code that translated the sonic data gathered from stationary sonar nets into a graphical image (the math was so far ahead of my education at that point, that this code was handed to me with scarcely a security concern), other friends were working on the "bone phone".
The "bone phone" was a radio that transmitted sound through the collar bone, to be used underwater for stealth communications for divers. Audio could be received and understood quite clearly, but responses had to be given in grunts, tongue clicks, or tapping on your collarbone. While there was a clamp/sheath that sat over the collar, most of the guts were worn on a pack on the back. It was at the pre-prototype stage when I saw it 9 years ago, a bit clunky. However, I'm sure it has long since been put into production.
I tell ya, that was the best summer job ever...I was 18 when I ran my code on one of the very first massively parallel machines, at Sandia Natl Labs, then ran it on their Cray to compare results. I felt so important. Plus I got to see all the cool shit our military was geeking out on. I mean really, how many people have ever seen a railgun fire a half-ton shell to supersonic speeds, only to have it impact into a molten sheet 2mm thick? Too cool.
Of the four largest theater chains in the US, Regal, Carmike, Loewes, and AMC, not one had a postive net income last year. In fact, the industry as a whole has negative 22% profit margin. (Source: www.hoovers.com) Most of them are barely out of bankruptcy for overbuilding during the stadium-seating craze of the last few years (a much-needed change, I think.) Operating expenses for a theater are quite high, and the credit-check-required concession prices are necessarily high to pay for the overhead. The air-conditioning bills alone are staggering. Most of the overhead comes from paying the studios, who continue to jack up their fee structure. This runs all the small guys and art houses out of business.
Implementing digital projection really only benefits the studios, as it is their distribution costs they wish to reduce. However, if you believe for one second that they will subsequently lower their royalty / right-to-exhibit rates as a result, you're crazy. (Case in point: CD manufacturing cost drop to nothing while CD retail prices continue to climb). The theaters know that they would have to bear the upgrade cost and have no real financial incentive to do so. They know the studios will bilk them the first chance they get. Further, once a theater is digital, you can ONLY show digital films there, and it would usually occupy your largest screen, monopolizing it for the trickle of digital films currently available.
I propose that the studios finance the theater modernization, that way they can make money on the finance charges, then save on their distribution costs. Of course, this would require complicated negotiations between the industries, probably with set rates for royalties, etc, so the theaters don't get screwed immediately.
To quote the article, "The venture-capital-backed free ride for content is over now. "
I work for a successful, subscription-based site, that offers 70% of its content for free. Ads keep the sub price low, and can be targeted based on where and how deep someone ventures.
The fact of the matter is that providing content, or information, COSTS MONEY. Lots of it. It costs $1.5M a month to generate our content, and 300 people to do it. Information may want to be free, but you have to pay someone to enable that freedom.
Hardware, bandwidth, and all the resources necessary to compile and present information each come with their substantial costs. To assume that anyone is going to GIVE it away forever is completely naive. That leaves two options: advertisement, or payment of some sort. I loathe ads, but recognize them as a necessary evil, because I don't want to pay.
I pay for HBO, because the content is superior, and there are no commercials. I see a value in it. I see lesser value in the free television, but...it's free...only because it comes with ads.
Yes, Slashdot and others like it would be quickly replaced if their parent went belly-up, until the burden of providing this new service required revenue of some sort from someone...either advertisers or the readers. It's very simple. You better get used to it.
And one final point. Slashdot itself uses someone else's content as a springboard for discussion. It is dependant upon the efforts and business models of other sources that put their resources into providing you with this "free" information. And you have to tolerate ads in both places to keep both of them free.
in the US, where we have cheap bandwidth and ridiculous amounts of disposable income compared to the rest of the world, I think the studios would be seriously remiss to not tap into this market now, so they can get people used to it and then apply the slow and deliberate fucking
You are talking about technology problems that originally hindered mp3, as well.
I remember when I first discovered mp3 in 1995, it took all night to rip one song with my hardware, and finding software utils for it was very difficult, then running them was hard to implement, too.
At that time, with dually bonded ISDN lines, I had MAJOR bandwidth for a consumer in '95, and it still took forever to find the stuff, wading thru lots of crap. It was right about the time the RIAA was sending cease-and-desists to the massive web and ftp archives at major US universities. After that, you had to find mp3s overseas. But I digress...
Still, the point is, that bandwidth, storage, and processor power will all catch up to Online Video, not to worry.
About two years ago, I started work at a major PC manufacturer in Texas (well, that narrows it down to 2, doesn't it). When I was handed the IP agreement to sign, I requested an audience with the HR and legal people to discuss my options, as I had other projects that I didnt want the company to have claims to.
Since the side projects did not directly have anything to do with my job description, all they asked was for some proof that I actually was doing what I said...so I produced a website and some incorporation papers, and that was that...they made a note on my contract, and I signed it.
About 3 months later, the company announced it was developing new products in line with what I was doing. In a pre-emptive measure, I approached Legal again to solidify my claims, as I was starting to make some good money on the side.
They didn't flinch, and said I was still free to do what I wanted. I think they really (and realistically) did not consider me any sort of threat, or potential competitor (just me and my partners can't compete with $32B/year company). Legal said my up-front disclosure was a wise idea on my part.
I quit there after a year for unrelated reasons. Incidentally, since then, a group of about 40 current employees there have formed a very profitable company in competition with those new products (which are failing miserably for the company....Quality still matters, folks), and they do so with the company's knowledge, even as they plug along with their dayjobs there. I think the guys in the startup are hoping for a buy-out.
Anyway, it's not exactly what you have experienced, but my advice is to disclose your projects up-front, and avoid any claims on you in the future.
<P> As the previous response said, this unwashed, anti-social bit is more of a stereotype than anything else.</P><P> I know plenty of geeks who pay more attention to the potted plants and the punch bowl at parties than to the guests, and who could stand some tips on hygiene and grooming...but just as many if not more who are the life of the party, terribly clever, sharp dressers, and social butterflies. Geekdom lends itself easily to anti-social behavior, and people who may have tendencies for such behavior to begin with are allowed to wallow in it by relating more frequently to machines than people. It's an "enabling" sitation for such folk.
A common trait you may find is intellectual arrogance. You have to allow nerds at least one Vanity. It's often all we've got. Besides...we are usually right. But like any other zealots, tunnel vision can quickly set in and discount any respect one's expertise might have brought before one became a posturing asshole who is talking from his ass just to sound learned. You know, just like I am now.
I disagree with position that there is an anti-intellectual sentiment in America. Certainly amongst teens, who are threatened by those who can outperform them in any mental task. It is a fear brought about by the creeping suspicion that these nerds will in fact one day be more powerful and successful than they. Media and sports figures excluded.
I would certainly say that the anti-intellectualism ceases in college, mainly because those who are threatened by intellect would not be at an institution of learning. It goes away with age, even outside of college, as people mature and realize that its the brains that make one successful. By no means is it bad as say, the "Tall Poppy" concept in Australian culture, which seems to condemn any effort by anyone to be something more or different than they were born into. (To my friends in Oz, I mean nothing personal...only repeating what you've told me.)
In general, the point is that being a technical enthusiast enables one to be anti-social or unhygenic...if one so chooses...and people forgive them because they are geeks and expect it. However, they are no more representative of the group than gangsta thugs are of African Americans, Rednecks of Southerners, nazis of the Germans........
Again, agreeing with the previous post, it is often a victim-act to talk about one's geekness, beating others to the punch, wearing it simultaneously as a badge of honor and a scarlet letter.
When will people get over their media-bred knee-jerk denial of the practicality of nuclear power?
I believe that France has the cheapest power in the world, and 70% of it is nuclear. France has never had a major nuclear incident. I was speaking with a career nuke-tech in the Navy the other day, and he was stating how the Navy has never had a significant incident, despite the prevalence of nuclear power in its ships. Why? Because they build a just a handful of configurations, 5 different types or so, and stick to those. Over the years, they have mastered those standard configs, and have no problems, with insignificant waste.
But, the arm of the petroleum interests is very long, and they can continue to monopolize power and spread paranoia and misinformation about alternatives, while polluting the earth with petro-combustion waste. Meanwhile, the Not In My Backyard mentality immediately kills any nuke proposal.
Nuclear is cheap, clean (yes, actually, it is), and provides abundant power. However, it's hard to make money on power surpluses, so it won't happen for a long time(i.e. big money in Prohibition).
Slashdot Mirror
Nemesis was a steaming pile of crap. Everything Trek since the death of Rodenberry has been crap (last 2 seasons of Next Generation on). Please Please Please stop flogging this dead horse franchise while I still have respect for the vast canon of work created before Berman was hired to milk Paramount's cash cow to death.
I went on a trip to with a buddy a year ago, I had a $300 1-year old 2.1 MP Canon Powershot s110, he brought a brand-new $1200 5MP Sony.
Every picture I took was better than his. We even swapped cameras and matched the settings after the first day reviewing the pictures to eliminate those variables, and the little Canon Elph outperformed in every shot - most noticeably in color quality. In fact, the only advantages the Sony had was a faster shutter response and better optical zoom.
I've now taken over 1300 pictures with the Canon s110, and it's tip-top. Every time I go to pick up some prints at Wolf / Ritz, the guys behind the counter ask me what camera I use.
As far as the friend's Sony? He sold it on eBay and bought a Canon s400.
The "bone phone" was a radio that transmitted sound through the collar bone, to be used underwater for stealth communications for divers. Audio could be received and understood quite clearly, but responses had to be given in grunts, tongue clicks, or tapping on your collarbone. While there was a clamp/sheath that sat over the collar, most of the guts were worn on a pack on the back. It was at the pre-prototype stage when I saw it 9 years ago, a bit clunky. However, I'm sure it has long since been put into production.
I tell ya, that was the best summer job ever...I was 18 when I ran my code on one of the very first massively parallel machines, at Sandia Natl Labs, then ran it on their Cray to compare results. I felt so important. Plus I got to see all the cool shit our military was geeking out on. I mean really, how many people have ever seen a railgun fire a half-ton shell to supersonic speeds, only to have it impact into a molten sheet 2mm thick? Too cool.
Implementing digital projection really only benefits the studios, as it is their distribution costs they wish to reduce. However, if you believe for one second that they will subsequently lower their royalty / right-to-exhibit rates as a result, you're crazy. (Case in point: CD manufacturing cost drop to nothing while CD retail prices continue to climb). The theaters know that they would have to bear the upgrade cost and have no real financial incentive to do so. They know the studios will bilk them the first chance they get. Further, once a theater is digital, you can ONLY show digital films there, and it would usually occupy your largest screen, monopolizing it for the trickle of digital films currently available.
I propose that the studios finance the theater modernization, that way they can make money on the finance charges, then save on their distribution costs. Of course, this would require complicated negotiations between the industries, probably with set rates for royalties, etc, so the theaters don't get screwed immediately.
I work for a successful, subscription-based site, that offers 70% of its content for free. Ads keep the sub price low, and can be targeted based on where and how deep someone ventures.
The fact of the matter is that providing content, or information, COSTS MONEY. Lots of it. It costs $1.5M a month to generate our content, and 300 people to do it. Information may want to be free, but you have to pay someone to enable that freedom.
Hardware, bandwidth, and all the resources necessary to compile and present information each come with their substantial costs. To assume that anyone is going to GIVE it away forever is completely naive. That leaves two options: advertisement, or payment of some sort. I loathe ads, but recognize them as a necessary evil, because I don't want to pay.
I pay for HBO, because the content is superior, and there are no commercials. I see a value in it. I see lesser value in the free television, but...it's free...only because it comes with ads.
Yes, Slashdot and others like it would be quickly replaced if their parent went belly-up, until the burden of providing this new service required revenue of some sort from someone...either advertisers or the readers. It's very simple. You better get used to it.
And one final point. Slashdot itself uses someone else's content as a springboard for discussion. It is dependant upon the efforts and business models of other sources that put their resources into providing you with this "free" information. And you have to tolerate ads in both places to keep both of them free.
Hell, you shoulda seen the stink Microsoft caused when they started offering linux!
in the US, where we have cheap bandwidth and ridiculous amounts of disposable income compared to the rest of the world, I think the studios would be seriously remiss to not tap into this market now, so they can get people used to it and then apply the slow and deliberate fucking
I remember when I first discovered mp3 in 1995, it took all night to rip one song with my hardware, and finding software utils for it was very difficult, then running them was hard to implement, too.
At that time, with dually bonded ISDN lines, I had MAJOR bandwidth for a consumer in '95, and it still took forever to find the stuff, wading thru lots of crap. It was right about the time the RIAA was sending cease-and-desists to the massive web and ftp archives at major US universities. After that, you had to find mp3s overseas. But I digress...
Still, the point is, that bandwidth, storage, and processor power will all catch up to Online Video, not to worry.
This is news because Georgia Tech has 4 times the number of students Wake Forest has....
Since the side projects did not directly have anything to do with my job description, all they asked was for some proof that I actually was doing what I said...so I produced a website and some incorporation papers, and that was that...they made a note on my contract, and I signed it.
About 3 months later, the company announced it was developing new products in line with what I was doing. In a pre-emptive measure, I approached Legal again to solidify my claims, as I was starting to make some good money on the side.
They didn't flinch, and said I was still free to do what I wanted. I think they really (and realistically) did not consider me any sort of threat, or potential competitor (just me and my partners can't compete with $32B/year company). Legal said my up-front disclosure was a wise idea on my part.
I quit there after a year for unrelated reasons. Incidentally, since then, a group of about 40 current employees there have formed a very profitable company in competition with those new products (which are failing miserably for the company....Quality still matters, folks), and they do so with the company's knowledge, even as they plug along with their dayjobs there. I think the guys in the startup are hoping for a buy-out.
Anyway, it's not exactly what you have experienced, but my advice is to disclose your projects up-front, and avoid any claims on you in the future.
<P> As the previous response said, this unwashed, anti-social bit is more of a stereotype than anything else.</P><P> I know plenty of geeks who pay more attention to the potted plants and the punch bowl at parties than to the guests, and who could stand some tips on hygiene and grooming...but just as many if not more who are the life of the party, terribly clever, sharp dressers, and social butterflies. Geekdom lends itself easily to anti-social behavior, and people who may have tendencies for such behavior to begin with are allowed to wallow in it by relating more frequently to machines than people. It's an "enabling" sitation for such folk.
A common trait you may find is intellectual arrogance. You have to allow nerds at least one Vanity. It's often all we've got. Besides...we are usually right. But like any other zealots, tunnel vision can quickly set in and discount any respect one's expertise might have brought before one became a posturing asshole who is talking from his ass just to sound learned. You know, just like I am now.
I disagree with position that there is an anti-intellectual sentiment in America. Certainly amongst teens, who are threatened by those who can outperform them in any mental task. It is a fear brought about by the creeping suspicion that these nerds will in fact one day be more powerful and successful than they. Media and sports figures excluded.
I would certainly say that the anti-intellectualism ceases in college, mainly because those who are threatened by intellect would not be at an institution of learning. It goes away with age, even outside of college, as people mature and realize that its the brains that make one successful. By no means is it bad as say, the "Tall Poppy" concept in Australian culture, which seems to condemn any effort by anyone to be something more or different than they were born into. (To my friends in Oz, I mean nothing personal...only repeating what you've told me.)
In general, the point is that being a technical enthusiast enables one to be anti-social or unhygenic...if one so chooses...and people forgive them because they are geeks and expect it. However, they are no more representative of the group than gangsta thugs are of African Americans, Rednecks of Southerners, nazis of the Germans........
Again, agreeing with the previous post, it is often a victim-act to talk about one's geekness, beating others to the punch, wearing it simultaneously as a badge of honor and a scarlet letter.
My $0.02
When will people get over their media-bred knee-jerk denial of the practicality of nuclear power? I believe that France has the cheapest power in the world, and 70% of it is nuclear. France has never had a major nuclear incident. I was speaking with a career nuke-tech in the Navy the other day, and he was stating how the Navy has never had a significant incident, despite the prevalence of nuclear power in its ships. Why? Because they build a just a handful of configurations, 5 different types or so, and stick to those. Over the years, they have mastered those standard configs, and have no problems, with insignificant waste. But, the arm of the petroleum interests is very long, and they can continue to monopolize power and spread paranoia and misinformation about alternatives, while polluting the earth with petro-combustion waste. Meanwhile, the Not In My Backyard mentality immediately kills any nuke proposal. Nuclear is cheap, clean (yes, actually, it is), and provides abundant power. However, it's hard to make money on power surpluses, so it won't happen for a long time(i.e. big money in Prohibition).