Oops, never mind. I didn't realize they were sending out an active signal to do this with. That's what I get for just skimming the article, I guess. ( :
Of course, design wasn't the focus of my rant, usability was. But as for repair and working on newer cars, you're of course right. Much more of a pain. Although, I must say, I do think that cars after say, 1992 or so started getting simpler to work on again. Durring the period from 1972-1992, the auto industry hadn't really figured out electronic controls and emmisions. It was all a haphazard mix of wires and vacume lines that created a rats nest condition under the cleanest of hoods. Then around 1992 when they started figuring out better fuel injection and ditching vacume almost completly, things got easier. I'd rather replace a wiring harness than trace a vacume leak any day. Prior to 72, cars were as simple as they ever were. But I honestly think that emmissions controled vehicles with electronicly controled carburators are more difficult to work on than say, a modern LS1, LT1, Triton, VTEC, Northstar, or your choice of new wiz-bang engines.
I've worked on both and understand why you think they're a pain. They are. But they're still better than the 80s (AKA the dark ages of auto technology).
Buddy, I find it hard to believe you're even old enough to be married with the immature way you're aproaching this (you wouldn't take me very seriously if I kept calling it "suckux" and I find no humor in "M$". In fact, it makes you look like a script kiddie). As for me being dreaming for the $200 price of Windows, nope. That's what you can get XP for *retail* at your locak Wal-Mart. OEM and bulk are of course even cheaper. Or perhaps you'll need a link to persuade you.
As for your wife liking red hat, good for her. I'm sure she's an anomoly though. The very concept of "root" is not intuative. "What, you mean I have to log in as someone else to change things?" It's a good idea on a multiuser system, but it doesn't fly as well for mom and dad.
On the desktop, I'll take Windows over Linux any day. I can install a copy of XP in just a few minutes (literally with just two or three clicks of a mouse, as the default settings are usualy exactly what I need.) The interface is simple enough that anyone that is so inclined will figure enough to be productive quite quickly.
Linux? Forget it. The first time I tried to install slackware, I gave up in frustration. Then someoen told me slackware is known for being difficult to install. So I figured, okay, bad distro. Bought myself a shrinkwraped copy of Red Hat. I still needed a Linux guru to help me geting it running the first time. That's not what I call easy. At the time, I had been programing for 10 years. Since I got my first PC. I was hardly a novice. Perhaps that was the problem. Perhaps windows has broken my mind so badly that I'm not capable of grasping anything else. Well if that's the case, Windows still wins. Since it enjoys something like 80% - 90% market domination now.
And don't start on *nix vs Windows in the server world. Read my posts, I never supported Windows in that roll. Just the desktop. *nix has it's roll and so does Windows.
What is so hard to accept about that? Everyone I know uses windows on their desktop machines except for one individual. The geltalman who's wife I mentioned. A few do work or play with *nix, but Windows is the primary desktop. Now I probably know hundreds of people. This isn't just close personal friends of course. This is everyone I can think of. Guess what? They all get by fine. None of them were foolish/spiteful enough to throw away their machines. Windows serves them all well. From the 50 year old grocer with Win 95 that just uses it to check his email write letters and browse opera (music, not browser) sites. To developers that code a certain Miva merchant killer on Win2K. As I speak, this is being typed on Windows. I have an AIM window open, 7 people I know are online. All of them on windows boxes (with one possible exception who's in an internet cafe in Korea but he uses windows at home)
User1 Works for an ISP runs Windows 2000
User2 Works for a small office as a net admin. Runs Windows XP / Red Hat on dual boot.
User3 Unemployed. She runs 98. Uses AOL if that's an indication of her computer literacy.
User4 Works for an ISP, runs Windows XP.
User5 Army Inteligence stationed in Korea. Runs windows 95 or 98 (I forget which) on his old pentium at home.
User6 College student. She too runs windows. 98 or Me, I can't recall which now.
User7 College student. Runs 98se.
As for things working, the world hasn't come to an end for myself or any of these people. What is it that you think windows does to computers? Do you think it physicaly damages them? Applications can crash. Especially on the patchwork kernel of Win 9x. But I run 9x and NT based machines. And I have never had a crash under 2000 that I couldn't reproduce and trace back to a specific application. And even then I've never had a crash hang the machine. Yes, I do run my machines 24/7. And i run seti@home, so the processors are always crunching away. No memory leaks except with some beta software, like bearshare. It all runs beutifuly.
Can Linux do that too? Apparently. But why would I want to use Linux? Just to be diffrent? There every compelling reason to use Windows on the desktop. So far as I can tell, the only reason not to is because people that spell Microsoft with a "$" say it's bad. I'm the first to admit MS's software isn't always the best in the world. I *hate* ie as a web browser. I used Netscape 4 until Mozilla.95 came out (the first one truly usable IMO). Mainly because IE was just frustrating for me to use. Even on a fast system, it seemed slugish to me. But for an OS, windows is my choice. And guess what, buddy, I'm not alone. For an office app, Office is my pick. Sure it has it's issues. But it has the fewest issues of any apps I've found. Not to mention the whole Office documents being a standard now thing...
I realize all these posts have been quite long winded. Really it's because I can't believe how remarkably stubborn some people can be. You don't like MS, okay I get that. Nobody's asking you to. But it's foolish to just dismiss them.
In a way it's ironic. MS isn't so foolish. They use BSD for servers at hotmail, use it for some limited dev work in Redmond and they even borrow hevily from much of BSD's protocalls and concepts. MS may be competing with BSD, but they're not stupid. They recognize the right tool for the job. When possible, they use their own product. In fact, I'm sure they probably use it more than they should, since it is *theirs*. Hell, they even develop software for the Mac. I suppose that's because the Mac actually *has* a market percentage of end users.
I've been reading your previous posts going back a couple of weeks. It's clear that you are just a closed minded bigot. I wouldn't be supprised if the last time you used Windows was at v3.1. Your loss. I kind of see it on the same level as those people that boycot DVDs because of the MPAA. You're missing out.
Good for you for standing up for what you believe in. And I really do mean that, that's not intended sarcasticly. But I just can't agree with you on this one. From where I stand, you're either simply misinformed, or you're a troll. I suspect it's the former. But I also suspect there is nothing that could sway your opinion.
You know, over the last week or so, my handel (which I've used for 12 years now) has been taken a beating. PornoMosh, PyroMash and someone on a half-life server calling me "Moshy". I'm insulted. (:
Sorry, but everyone I know is able to at least muddle through windows. I've never known anyone to throw away a $1000 machine simply because they think windows sucks.
If you're really that dierce an anti-MS bigot, then tell your mother to try the wonderful world of Apple. Get her an iMac. AOL can be had there too. But that only strengthens my argument a bit. This isn't a Microsoft is good argument. This is a Linux is bad (in this particular roll) argument. Through no technical fault of Linux. It's simply a matter of the fact that this software has to function in *gasp* the real world!
As for a box that does not work, I garuntee you that that box worked when it came from Compaq or HP or Dell or Gateway or Bob's Discount Computerama. When it stops working, 99% of the time it's the fault of the end l-user. Now are you telling me that Linux is *more* safe to clueless l-users? Now I'm not talking office environment here wher an admin sets her permissions to nil, I'm talking about the "your mother's home PC" scenerio. Where whoever owns the box has root. Don't make me laugh. As I said, Linix isn't easier to use, it's HARDER. Just like a Dodge (or Chrystler if you're in Europe) Viper isn't easier to drive than a Dodge Neon, it's harder. Great analogy there, as most drivers have a hard time getting a Viper out of the driveway on the first try (I know, a neighbor has one and he likes to let people try while he laughs). By the same token, a Dodge Viper is inapropriate for corperate fleet use. I don't care if you're bitter that Microsoft has the audacity to *gasp* charge money for it's product. They *have* *won* on the desktop. You can call it the MS tax and you can whine and bitch and you can refuse to buy a MS PC and you can buy Apple, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that Win32 is just more usable for my mom. A friend of mine is just like you. He's a die hard Linux guru. Works as a sysadmin for some company in Manhatan. All the PCs in his house are Linux. Except one. As die hard as he is, he can't convince his own wife to use it. Oh he's tried, he's taught her, but she grasps windows. She doens't get Linux. She'll sit there, patiently listening to what he tells her, *enduring* his lesson for his sake. And inevdiably, he'll stop talking and ask her to do whatever it was he told her to do. She'll do it wrong and he'll say "no, no, not like that" and you can just see the frustration building. Eventually, yeah, she does get what ever obscure fool thing he was trying to teach her that she doesn't care about anyway. She's a bright girl. But it doesn't happen without pulling some teeth. And guess what? She still prefers Windows. She's more productive there because of it. She can use AOL and Office and whatever other user friendly familiar apps she has there. While he sits quietly in his den compiling the kernel of the month.
Now if Linux guys can't convince their own families to drop Windows in favor of Linux, then where do they get off saying it's better for the Average Joe? Canse let's face it, that's the determining factor of weather it's ready for the corperate desktop. Is it usable by the average Joe? If not, stick to something easier.
As for cost savings, someone's got to administer all those *nix boxes. And last I checked, *nix admins commanded fairly hefty saleries. I'm fairly sure the friend I mentioned is making ~$100K I know the last job he quit he was making $70K. Let's say you have 200 boxes in an office. At $200 per MS license, (assuming no bulk discount, which they DO offer) that's just $40,000. Leaving you at least $50,000+ to bring in a windows guy if you still think you need it (yes, windows guys are considerably cheaper than their *nix counterparts last I checked). Plus you have the added bonus that windows is 1) so simple and 2) so wide spread that someone who already works for you can probably more than handle it. Now, granted if you're enterprise level and are going to be using a *nix back end, or using *nix for something else it's legitimatly good for anyway, this may be something you can pass on to someone already on your payroll anyway.
Another consideration that you may not have thought of is familiarity with apps. Many companies, large and small require that job applicants be familiar with certain apps. MS Word, Excel, and a couple other office family products are common.
When is the last time you saw this:
Wanted:
Small accounting firm seeks administrative assistant. Salery $16/ Hr to start Must have working knowlege of Red Hat Linux Star Office and KDE.
IT wouldn't likley draw much of a responce.
Face it, you may not like MS, but your fight in and of it self is counterproductive. Concentrate on building Linux where it has a fighting chance for now. Servers.
Except that you're forgetting that most users today have a PC at home. And more likley than not, that PC is running Windows. Hence, it's an interface they are more used to and more familar with. That's worth a lot of stickey notes.
Your arguments are completely baseless and outright wrong. Cars WERE more complicated TO OPERATE when they first started to produce them. How many cars on the road today do you have to do the following to:
Manually turn on the electrical system to crank the engine.
Manually adjust the timing of the engine WHILE DRIVING with a spark timing lever(!)
Manually crank the engine (!)
Manually shift gears (some)
Manually operate a choke (most of you'll probably ask what that is)
Wait for the car to "warm up" (recommended but not necessary for most cars on the road today)
Actually use a parking brake. (most people with automatics never use them any more)
Just for fun, try going here to try and go through the steps of starting a Ford Model T. A bit more involved than just getting in your car, turning the key, putting it in gear and going, isn't it?
Now, to address the statement that cars have gotten more complicated. In a sense they have. But only in unnecessary things. Not to operate. The oldest car I've owned was an '81 Chevy Camaro. My current car is a '97 Olds Aurora. Let's compare the two:
The Camaro had a carburetor. It was finicky to run and to start. It had drum brakes that needed to be adjusted from time to time. It had a coolant system that had to be changed every 40,000 miles. Oil, every 5000.
Now my Aurora, by contrast has a modern sequential fuel injection system. I don't have to give it gas to start it. I don't have to let it warm up or worry about it stalling (but it's a good idea to anyway for reasons outside the scope of this post). I believe the recommended interval for coolant changes is 100,000 miles. Oil is something like 7500 miles, *but* the really cool thing compared to my Camaro is that it *tells me* when to do these things. It has a computer on board that takes into account how many miles I've driven AND how hard those miles were (city / highway). Then it lets me know when to do these things. I still don't listen to them, I change my oil every 3000 - 5000, but it's certainly a more complex system that is more simple for the end user.
What else is more complicated about my Aurora? The onboard computer has lots of features for calculating fuel mileage, ETAs, etc. But do you need to know how to use it to drive the car? No, not at all. Even the switch for the power seats is simpler than the manual levers in the Camaro. The seat switch is in the shape of a seat: _/ just push the part of the seat in the direction you want it to go and the seat moves. The car turns the lights on for you when it's dark out. IT has power mirrors which are a lot easier to use than rolling down the windows and adjusting them manually, I could go on and on...
The only things the newer Aurora adds to the complexity are things that you can pretend don't even exist and still be able to drive the car. (The computer for instance)
The point is that GM and Ford and Toyota, and everyone else are making cars simpler to use. Many cars can't be had with a manual transmition any more. I know of no major production cars built since the Jeep CJ5 (I believe 1986 was the last year) that can't be had with an automatic in some trim level. And The CJ5 was a special case since it's wheelbase was too short.
Next to address the notion that old people don't understand computers, young people do. Why I must agree that the number of youth that embrace technology vs. the number of older generations is disproportionate, it's not nearly as much so as you are assuming.
A couple of months ago, I would have agreed with you, but something changed my mind.
A couple months ago, my best friend who works for Bristol Meyers Squib as a Java / Perl programmer / general intranet developer. Built himself an Athlon box. When he did that, he decided to send his old Celeron box, which had served him though college to his younger brother who's about 14 and is a very bright kid. He packed it up and mailed it to him. About a week or two later, he got a call from the young lad. Apparently he was upset because in the state the box was sent to him, java was turned off. This upset him as he was used to going to certain sites to play java Tetris or some such nonsense. Well, my friend refused to tell him how to turn it back on. Saying instead to figure it out for himself. He never did. He just gave up. It's still not on.
This kid isn't alone. My ex-girlfriend is currently going to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University studying Aerospace Engineering (literally rocket science). When Napster shut down, she ran to me to help her find MP3s. With much reluctance, I set up a Gnutella client for her. She had trouble using it. Then when ERAU blocked whatever port it used, she was completely lost. She no longer downloads MP3s. She's 19 years old and quite bright. But she's lost when it comes to computers.
I don't know where you are meeting all these kids that swarm all over Linux, but it sure isn't anywhere *I've* ever lived. Most kids today think they're "leet" by using macro programs in AOL chat rooms. Why? Because a big percentage of kids today aren't evolving beyond AOL. Let alone ditching windows for Linux.
These examples above serve to illustrate a trend:
15 or so years ago, being computer literate meant knowing how to program. Then it meant understanding a command line file system. Then it meant being able to navigate a GUI. It's rapidly reaching the point where it will mean being able to use a handful of standard applications such as AOL, Office, and Solitaire.
You're anti-Microsoft bias comes through loud and clear in your post. Wake up!!! This isn't *about* Microsoft. Making things easy for the novice user isn't something only Microsoft is trying to achieve. It's something EVERY software company with a product aimed at the novice user are trying to achieve. If they're not, they're fools. It just so happens that Microsoft is one of the leaders in that field with OSes. Weather it's because Windows is what people are used to, or weather it really is more intuitive is debatable, of course.
You're right, times *do* change. But you're absolutely backwards in your assertation that making things harder will encourage people to learn more and will make people embrace a technology. There is a difference between core usability and extended feature sets. The idea, weather you're designing a car or an OS is to make the basic usability foremost and s-i-m-p-l-e. Then you can start adding bells and whistles so long as they are not necessary to use the basic product.
Why is everyone trying to shoehorn Linux into something it's bad at? I use Red Hat Linux exclusivly for my web servers. It scales well, I'm happy with it's security and it simply works helluva well? in that capacity.
However, I use exclusivly Win32 on the desktop. I have a digital studio box that uses Me, and will soon be upgrading that to XP. A couple dev boxen with 2000, and an older box with 98se. For my needs Win32 works helluva well? on the desktop. (Not to mention that I like to play games).
Now, *I* use win32, because I have a choice and I pick win32. But that's not why I think this is a bad (and stupid) idea.
Show of hands, how many of you have parents and grandparents could go to work tomorrow and use *nix without a hitch instead of Win32?
Business want their workers to be *productive*. And yes, I know you can argue that many of the powerful features found in *nix desktops make a user *more* productive. But only the top 5% or so that will ever figure them out. I'd venture to guess that 99% of *windows* users never figure out *it's* features.
Right clickable context menus are something that the average secretary or insurance broker or customer service rep has probably never heard of.
The file structure on win32 is a mystery to these workers. If their copy of word somehow winds up pointing to a diffrent working directory than C:/My Documents/ then half of them will have no prayer of navigating back to where it was and will declare their files "lost". Until someone comes along and fixes it for them.
It all boils down to this: If I gave my mother a Porche 911 Twin Turbo tomorrow, I know that she would drive it to work every day exactly the same as she drives her Subaru Outback station wagon. It's only certain people that will take advantage of the extra power. This analogy isn't less applicable to computers, it's MORE applicable.
The point? Win32 is easier than *nix. And Win32 is STILL TOO HARD for the masses. Yes, I am well aware of the fact that your average geek can use it. Your average IT guy can use it, but they're not 99% of officeworkers world wide. So why would you want to take a step backwards and make these poor saps use somethign that will make them hate computers even more?
It seems a lot like cutting off your own nose to spite Microsoft's Face to me.
True. I forgot about that. I totally picked bad examples of both directors' work. If I remember correctly, Kuberick never did a film outside of Europe as he had a fear of flying. Kuberick may not have been very Hollywood in his methods but at least with Full Metal Jacket, it was just pure entertainment war movie fluff (in that regard it was Hollywood). Contrast that with most of Spielberg's work after Empire of the Sun, and it's not very Hollywood at all. I of course am refering to Saving Private Ryan, Empire Of The Sun, Schindler's List, etc. His films that had a purpose other than just to entertain. Oh sure, with people like Hanks involved, it seems like just another hollywood war flick. But have you ever sat down and watched that film? Or better yet, have you ever sat down and spoken to a World War II vet who's seen the film? I have. And the reaction I got from a man who's served America as infantry grunt in North Africa, later a fighter pilot over Europe, then fighting the Nazis on the Ground again after being shot down over occupied France. He would later serve in Korea, and then again in Vietnam as a Colonel commanding an Air Force fighter wing. The reaction I got from that man said more about that film than any critic or holier than thou, it's-from-the-establishment-therefore-it's-artisti cly-inferior criticizm ever will.
With all respect to Mr. Kuberick, I loved most of his work, including Full Metal Jacket. (I can quote most of it from memory) But Full Metal Jacket was just a movie. Just entertainment. Films like Saving Private Ryan are more than that. And they are rare indeed. Doubly so in Hollywood. Full Metal Jacket didn't show off Kuberick's genius. It was a film I enjoyed, but I really believe that it was just Hollywood level fodder for the masses.
How's this for a better example, Saving Private Ryan vs. GI Jane?
Yes, you're absolutly correct on the first count. Only in video games, will missiles do a full 180 and chase something down. The velocity of a missile is just too great to even design it to TRY to track something it's passed. The turning acr would be enormous. Even a shoulder mounted SAM like a Stinger flys at Mach 2.
As for the rescue scene, I haven't seen the film yet, but it isn't nessisarily unrealistic. Remember two key points: 1) The modern helicopter gunship is one of the most formidable weapon systems on the modern battlefiel. They are capable of caryint TOW missiles which will kill tanks, the gattling guns have look-down / shoot-down capability, etc. 2) For a rescue, the rescuing forces would only have to hold off the opposing forces long enough to snatch their target and dust off. Killing the enemy isn't nessisarily required. Pinning him down, or just slowing his advance sufficiently is enough.
I haven't seen it yet, as it's not out in my neck of the woods, but I was able to catch a rather lengthy interview with the filmmaker on National Public Radio. Apparently he's a former cameraman for the Bosnian Army, and much of the movie is based upon his real life experiences in the war. They discussed the film at great length, and it sounds like a real winner. A meaningful war movie of the Saving Private Ryan camp, not the Hollywoodesque Full Metal Jacket camp.
And yes, I did mean to use my +1 bonus, which I almost never do, since I'd really like people to take notice of this film and check it out. Like I said, I have not yet seen it, but if the fimlmaker (his name escapes my memory) can relate a story as well on film as he can in an interview, it promises to be absolutly gripping.
*shudder* just a script kiddie school? That scares the willies out of me. As if the "naturally occurring" script kiddies weren't enough, now we need schools to pump them out assembly line style!? I've got these visions of a school full of 12-18 year old script kiddy paramilitaries in nazi-esque uniforms. The "Script kiddy youth" as it were...
Will these students be able to come back for second or third year programs? Year 2: Intro to DDoS? Year 3: Application of DDoS theory? I don't even want to think about it!
This isn't just a school! It's a central command! The script kiddies are organizing!
Even though I always prefered the 24th century Trek series, 6 tops my list because it was just that undeniably good it suffered from none of the acting problems in many of the others, it had the drama, the plot, and wasn't hokey (although a certain amount of lightness is of course acceptable or even desirable, some of the others were over the top).
As for The Wrath of Kahn, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? It was okay but I have the same criticizm you did of Generations with Lursa and B'Etor. Kahn was in ONE episode. At least the "Klingon chicks with the tits" were recurring villans. They were in probably half a dozen episodes. Look back 30 years before any of the movies were made. Who were the recurring villans in TOS that you wouldn't have to have seen every episode to know? Harry Mudd? Now there's a frightening villan!
Next, I've got ST1. I dunno, I loved that one. Especially where they find out what V'Ger was. That was just great. The diffrence between it and the rest of the TOS movies (Except 6) seemed to me that it wasn't trying to be just liek the good old days of the series. This was a crew that was thrust back together for a crisis, not just another episode with better effects.
Next, for Generations, I liked this one. I liked how they included the Enterprise B, I liked everything except for the fact that the villan didn't seem larger than life liek a villian in a Trek feature film should. (Though he did remind me of my JROTC Colonel, so that was fun). As for how kirk died, yeah, it lacked drama. But it allowed "private time" between the two captains so that there could be closure. I also loved (and was probably shocked the same way TOS fans were at the end of TWoK) how the Enterprise is destroyed.
I had TWoK next, and it would have been higher, but really, I never thought Kahn was a very impressive villan. Strike that. He is impressive. But not make-a-movie-about-it impressive. But despite that, it did make for some very entertaining trek, especially on the surface of the dust planet and the starship battle.
The Voyage home was next, because it was light and entertaining and just better than the other two remaining films.
The Search For Spock was lame. Like the bad episodes where they over use a plot device like the transporter to make the crew into children or animals or transport them into a parallel universe. Just hokey.
As for Insurection, I would have had no problem with it, if it had been an episode. It feels like an episode. I dunno, I just feel that the films should be important. Something BIG shoudl be on the line. Insurection just had this unremarkable away mission episode feel to it. Nothing wrong with it, but it should never have been a feature film.
Then we have 5... oh dear, 5.
What can I say about a film where they go to the edge of the galaxy to try and find God? I mean, there's really nothing I can say about... that digit that I shall not mention because it hath been dirtyed by Shatner's directing...
I'm looking forward to Nemesis. I always thought the Romulans v. Next Gen was a movie that needed to be made, but after the Dominion War in DS9, I figured that would never happen. Speaking of which, I'd LOOOVE to see a DS9 film. I didn't particularly like Voyager and I haven't had time to watch Enterprise, but I liked DS9 as much as TNG. I loved how dark it was I loved the characters. And I loved how the universe got turned on it's head by the Dominion War. Too bad it looks like it will never see a film ):
It was just a joke. After some of Russia's previous toubles with space stations, I thought it might be humorous. I *know* they didn't break the space station. But I thought wording it like that would make it obvious to anyone that it was ment humorously. I tell you man, it's those damned Russians! They're bad luck to have on space stations!
Sure, if you consider December, 1972 to be "the late 70s".
Seriously, though, with each passing year we learn more. Technology advances as does our understanding of what the trip will take. Every year that passes, the trip becomes easier to embark upon. I doubt very much that man will resist the temptation to explore the solar system for ever.
I fear I am only serving to feed a troll, but what is it that you think? That since it's been 30 years, we'll never visit another world again? Why? Or do you believe that it was all an elaborate hoax?That NASA never sent men to the moon?
If you're not a simple troll, I'd love to hear your line of reasoning.
Just currious, where you got this list. It *looks* right to me. That is to say that it looks liek the top 10 highest grossing movies... but the order seems wrong. For instance, I know that when it was in theaters, Jurrassic Park became the number 1 film, which means that although Titanic could be higher (since it came out later) ET and Star Wars couldn't be... Perhaps what I read didn't account for later home video sales or something. Not saying you're wrong, since it looks so damn right, but it seems to not jive with some of what I've read...
Actually, this is done already all the time... but by hollywood. When a film is made, the MPAA reviews it and gives it their rating. Frequently, Hollywood will submit a movie and it will come back with an 'R' rating. The studio may decide that an 'R' rating would make them less money by restricting it from a large portion of their target audience, and if they decide that, the movie goes back to editing (sometimes in extreme cases, scenes are re-shot) and a new version is submitted, one that will get them their "target rating". The perfect example of this is the film Basic Instinct. When that film was submitted for review, it became the first movie to recieve the then new, NC-17 rating. The studio decided that since they wanted the money of the under 17 crowd, that they would re-edit it and shoot for an R, which they got. Later that decision was (partially) reversed, when the studio actually released the film in BOTH NC-17 AND R versions to theaters, and home video. So as far as I can tell, this would broaden up the spectrum of available movies for a lot of parrents who are paranoid^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h concerned about their children seeing what they want^h^h^h^h shouldn't.
Now granted, I doubt it will do much for some films, like the Southpark movie or such great "classic" films like Strip to Kill. Seeing as those films would probably be about 8 minutes long and have nothing even resembling plot if they were cut down a rating... But there are THOUSANDS of films out there that only have content that people find objectionable for their children to watch in a couple scenes which can be cut without significantly dammaging the plot. Take one of my favorite films for example, Top Gun. Most people would probably think that the violence is the worst part of the film, but there is lots of language that I never even realized would have to be cut for TV. I just never thought of it when enjoying the film. Everything form "Mother Goose, you Pussy!" to "You'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong" Most parrents don't mind their kids seeing violence as long as it's not overly graphic. But lots of parrents DO mind swearing in movies because their children tend to emmulate it. They tend to emulate some of the violence too (through play, etc) but for whatever reason, this is more acceptable, but that's another discussion entirly...
Another example, Starship Troopers I think, probably a better example... there are about a dozen scenes in that film that add to the atmosphere of the film, but take nothing important away by being cut. The nude scenes (shower and sex scene), for instance, and some of the more graphic scenes of soilders being literally torn apart. You can have a war movie without these scenes. I personally would rather see the movie as it was intended to be seen, but I can understand the choice of parents that want to control what their kids see. In many ways it's not censorship at all, think of it as browsing the films at 4 or 5 rather than ar -1.
Slashdot Mirror
What you say?!
Oops, never mind. I didn't realize they were sending out an active signal to do this with. That's what I get for just skimming the article, I guess. ( :
Reminds me a lot of the Total Perspective Vortex from Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Life imitating art (loosly). DNA, I think would have been plesantly amused to see this.
DEFINATLY TRUE!
Of course, design wasn't the focus of my rant, usability was. But as for repair and working on newer cars, you're of course right. Much more of a pain. Although, I must say, I do think that cars after say, 1992 or so started getting simpler to work on again. Durring the period from 1972-1992, the auto industry hadn't really figured out electronic controls and emmisions. It was all a haphazard mix of wires and vacume lines that created a rats nest condition under the cleanest of hoods. Then around 1992 when they started figuring out better fuel injection and ditching vacume almost completly, things got easier. I'd rather replace a wiring harness than trace a vacume leak any day. Prior to 72, cars were as simple as they ever were. But I honestly think that emmissions controled vehicles with electronicly controled carburators are more difficult to work on than say, a modern LS1, LT1, Triton, VTEC, Northstar, or your choice of new wiz-bang engines.
I've worked on both and understand why you think they're a pain. They are. But they're still better than the 80s (AKA the dark ages of auto technology).
Buddy, I find it hard to believe you're even old enough to be married with the immature way you're aproaching this (you wouldn't take me very seriously if I kept calling it "suckux" and I find no humor in "M$". In fact, it makes you look like a script kiddie). As for me being dreaming for the $200 price of Windows, nope. That's what you can get XP for *retail* at your locak Wal-Mart. OEM and bulk are of course even cheaper. Or perhaps you'll need a link to persuade you.
.95 came out (the first one truly usable IMO). Mainly because IE was just frustrating for me to use. Even on a fast system, it seemed slugish to me. But for an OS, windows is my choice. And guess what, buddy, I'm not alone. For an office app, Office is my pick. Sure it has it's issues. But it has the fewest issues of any apps I've found. Not to mention the whole Office documents being a standard now thing...
As for your wife liking red hat, good for her. I'm sure she's an anomoly though. The very concept of "root" is not intuative. "What, you mean I have to log in as someone else to change things?" It's a good idea on a multiuser system, but it doesn't fly as well for mom and dad.
On the desktop, I'll take Windows over Linux any day. I can install a copy of XP in just a few minutes (literally with just two or three clicks of a mouse, as the default settings are usualy exactly what I need.) The interface is simple enough that anyone that is so inclined will figure enough to be productive quite quickly.
Linux? Forget it. The first time I tried to install slackware, I gave up in frustration. Then someoen told me slackware is known for being difficult to install. So I figured, okay, bad distro. Bought myself a shrinkwraped copy of Red Hat. I still needed a Linux guru to help me geting it running the first time. That's not what I call easy. At the time, I had been programing for 10 years. Since I got my first PC. I was hardly a novice. Perhaps that was the problem. Perhaps windows has broken my mind so badly that I'm not capable of grasping anything else. Well if that's the case, Windows still wins. Since it enjoys something like 80% - 90% market domination now.
And don't start on *nix vs Windows in the server world. Read my posts, I never supported Windows in that roll. Just the desktop. *nix has it's roll and so does Windows.
What is so hard to accept about that? Everyone I know uses windows on their desktop machines except for one individual. The geltalman who's wife I mentioned. A few do work or play with *nix, but Windows is the primary desktop. Now I probably know hundreds of people. This isn't just close personal friends of course. This is everyone I can think of. Guess what? They all get by fine. None of them were foolish/spiteful enough to throw away their machines. Windows serves them all well. From the 50 year old grocer with Win 95 that just uses it to check his email write letters and browse opera (music, not browser) sites. To developers that code a certain Miva merchant killer on Win2K. As I speak, this is being typed on Windows. I have an AIM window open, 7 people I know are online. All of them on windows boxes (with one possible exception who's in an internet cafe in Korea but he uses windows at home)
User1 Works for an ISP runs Windows 2000
User2 Works for a small office as a net admin. Runs Windows XP / Red Hat on dual boot.
User3 Unemployed. She runs 98. Uses AOL if that's an indication of her computer literacy.
User4 Works for an ISP, runs Windows XP.
User5 Army Inteligence stationed in Korea. Runs windows 95 or 98 (I forget which) on his old pentium at home.
User6 College student. She too runs windows. 98 or Me, I can't recall which now.
User7 College student. Runs 98se.
As for things working, the world hasn't come to an end for myself or any of these people. What is it that you think windows does to computers? Do you think it physicaly damages them? Applications can crash. Especially on the patchwork kernel of Win 9x. But I run 9x and NT based machines. And I have never had a crash under 2000 that I couldn't reproduce and trace back to a specific application. And even then I've never had a crash hang the machine. Yes, I do run my machines 24/7. And i run seti@home, so the processors are always crunching away. No memory leaks except with some beta software, like bearshare. It all runs beutifuly.
Can Linux do that too? Apparently. But why would I want to use Linux? Just to be diffrent? There every compelling reason to use Windows on the desktop. So far as I can tell, the only reason not to is because people that spell Microsoft with a "$" say it's bad. I'm the first to admit MS's software isn't always the best in the world. I *hate* ie as a web browser. I used Netscape 4 until Mozilla
I realize all these posts have been quite long winded. Really it's because I can't believe how remarkably stubborn some people can be. You don't like MS, okay I get that. Nobody's asking you to. But it's foolish to just dismiss them.
In a way it's ironic. MS isn't so foolish. They use BSD for servers at hotmail, use it for some limited dev work in Redmond and they even borrow hevily from much of BSD's protocalls and concepts. MS may be competing with BSD, but they're not stupid. They recognize the right tool for the job. When possible, they use their own product. In fact, I'm sure they probably use it more than they should, since it is *theirs*. Hell, they even develop software for the Mac. I suppose that's because the Mac actually *has* a market percentage of end users.
I've been reading your previous posts going back a couple of weeks. It's clear that you are just a closed minded bigot. I wouldn't be supprised if the last time you used Windows was at v3.1. Your loss. I kind of see it on the same level as those people that boycot DVDs because of the MPAA. You're missing out.
Good for you for standing up for what you believe in. And I really do mean that, that's not intended sarcasticly. But I just can't agree with you on this one. From where I stand, you're either simply misinformed, or you're a troll. I suspect it's the former. But I also suspect there is nothing that could sway your opinion.
What a shame.
PyroMash,
You know, over the last week or so, my handel (which I've used for 12 years now) has been taken a beating. PornoMosh, PyroMash and someone on a half-life server calling me "Moshy". I'm insulted. (:
Okay, now *this* should be modded down.
Sorry, but everyone I know is able to at least muddle through windows. I've never known anyone to throw away a $1000 machine simply because they think windows sucks.
If you're really that dierce an anti-MS bigot, then tell your mother to try the wonderful world of Apple. Get her an iMac. AOL can be had there too. But that only strengthens my argument a bit. This isn't a Microsoft is good argument. This is a Linux is bad (in this particular roll) argument. Through no technical fault of Linux. It's simply a matter of the fact that this software has to function in *gasp* the real world!
As for a box that does not work, I garuntee you that that box worked when it came from Compaq or HP or Dell or Gateway or Bob's Discount Computerama. When it stops working, 99% of the time it's the fault of the end l-user. Now are you telling me that Linux is *more* safe to clueless l-users? Now I'm not talking office environment here wher an admin sets her permissions to nil, I'm talking about the "your mother's home PC" scenerio. Where whoever owns the box has root. Don't make me laugh. As I said, Linix isn't easier to use, it's HARDER. Just like a Dodge (or Chrystler if you're in Europe) Viper isn't easier to drive than a Dodge Neon, it's harder. Great analogy there, as most drivers have a hard time getting a Viper out of the driveway on the first try (I know, a neighbor has one and he likes to let people try while he laughs). By the same token, a Dodge Viper is inapropriate for corperate fleet use. I don't care if you're bitter that Microsoft has the audacity to *gasp* charge money for it's product. They *have* *won* on the desktop. You can call it the MS tax and you can whine and bitch and you can refuse to buy a MS PC and you can buy Apple, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that Win32 is just more usable for my mom. A friend of mine is just like you. He's a die hard Linux guru. Works as a sysadmin for some company in Manhatan. All the PCs in his house are Linux. Except one. As die hard as he is, he can't convince his own wife to use it. Oh he's tried, he's taught her, but she grasps windows. She doens't get Linux. She'll sit there, patiently listening to what he tells her, *enduring* his lesson for his sake. And inevdiably, he'll stop talking and ask her to do whatever it was he told her to do. She'll do it wrong and he'll say "no, no, not like that" and you can just see the frustration building. Eventually, yeah, she does get what ever obscure fool thing he was trying to teach her that she doesn't care about anyway. She's a bright girl. But it doesn't happen without pulling some teeth. And guess what? She still prefers Windows. She's more productive there because of it. She can use AOL and Office and whatever other user friendly familiar apps she has there. While he sits quietly in his den compiling the kernel of the month.
Now if Linux guys can't convince their own families to drop Windows in favor of Linux, then where do they get off saying it's better for the Average Joe? Canse let's face it, that's the determining factor of weather it's ready for the corperate desktop. Is it usable by the average Joe? If not, stick to something easier.
As for cost savings, someone's got to administer all those *nix boxes. And last I checked, *nix admins commanded fairly hefty saleries. I'm fairly sure the friend I mentioned is making ~$100K I know the last job he quit he was making $70K. Let's say you have 200 boxes in an office. At $200 per MS license, (assuming no bulk discount, which they DO offer) that's just $40,000. Leaving you at least $50,000+ to bring in a windows guy if you still think you need it (yes, windows guys are considerably cheaper than their *nix counterparts last I checked). Plus you have the added bonus that windows is 1) so simple and 2) so wide spread that someone who already works for you can probably more than handle it. Now, granted if you're enterprise level and are going to be using a *nix back end, or using *nix for something else it's legitimatly good for anyway, this may be something you can pass on to someone already on your payroll anyway.
Another consideration that you may not have thought of is familiarity with apps. Many companies, large and small require that job applicants be familiar with certain apps. MS Word, Excel, and a couple other office family products are common.
When is the last time you saw this:
Wanted:
Small accounting firm seeks administrative assistant. Salery $16/ Hr to start Must have working knowlege of Red Hat Linux Star Office and KDE.
IT wouldn't likley draw much of a responce.
Face it, you may not like MS, but your fight in and of it self is counterproductive. Concentrate on building Linux where it has a fighting chance for now. Servers.
Except that you're forgetting that most users today have a PC at home. And more likley than not, that PC is running Windows. Hence, it's an interface they are more used to and more familar with. That's worth a lot of stickey notes.
Manually turn on the electrical system to crank the engine.
Manually adjust the timing of the engine WHILE DRIVING with a spark timing lever(!)
Manually crank the engine (!)
Manually shift gears (some)
Manually operate a choke (most of you'll probably ask what that is)
Wait for the car to "warm up" (recommended but not necessary for most cars on the road today)
Actually use a parking brake. (most people with automatics never use them any more)
Just for fun, try going here to try and go through the steps of starting a Ford Model T. A bit more involved than just getting in your car, turning the key, putting it in gear and going, isn't it?
Now, to address the statement that cars have gotten more complicated. In a sense they have. But only in unnecessary things. Not to operate. The oldest car I've owned was an '81 Chevy Camaro. My current car is a '97 Olds Aurora. Let's compare the two:
The Camaro had a carburetor. It was finicky to run and to start. It had drum brakes that needed to be adjusted from time to time. It had a coolant system that had to be changed every 40,000 miles. Oil, every 5000.
Now my Aurora, by contrast has a modern sequential fuel injection system. I don't have to give it gas to start it. I don't have to let it warm up or worry about it stalling (but it's a good idea to anyway for reasons outside the scope of this post). I believe the recommended interval for coolant changes is 100,000 miles. Oil is something like 7500 miles, *but* the really cool thing compared to my Camaro is that it *tells me* when to do these things. It has a computer on board that takes into account how many miles I've driven AND how hard those miles were (city / highway). Then it lets me know when to do these things. I still don't listen to them, I change my oil every 3000 - 5000, but it's certainly a more complex system that is more simple for the end user.
What else is more complicated about my Aurora? The onboard computer has lots of features for calculating fuel mileage, ETAs, etc. But do you need to know how to use it to drive the car? No, not at all. Even the switch for the power seats is simpler than the manual levers in the Camaro. The seat switch is in the shape of a seat: _/ just push the part of the seat in the direction you want it to go and the seat moves. The car turns the lights on for you when it's dark out. IT has power mirrors which are a lot easier to use than rolling down the windows and adjusting them manually, I could go on and on...
The only things the newer Aurora adds to the complexity are things that you can pretend don't even exist and still be able to drive the car. (The computer for instance)
The point is that GM and Ford and Toyota, and everyone else are making cars simpler to use. Many cars can't be had with a manual transmition any more. I know of no major production cars built since the Jeep CJ5 (I believe 1986 was the last year) that can't be had with an automatic in some trim level. And The CJ5 was a special case since it's wheelbase was too short.
Next to address the notion that old people don't understand computers, young people do. Why I must agree that the number of youth that embrace technology vs. the number of older generations is disproportionate, it's not nearly as much so as you are assuming.
A couple of months ago, I would have agreed with you, but something changed my mind.
A couple months ago, my best friend who works for Bristol Meyers Squib as a Java / Perl programmer / general intranet developer. Built himself an Athlon box. When he did that, he decided to send his old Celeron box, which had served him though college to his younger brother who's about 14 and is a very bright kid. He packed it up and mailed it to him. About a week or two later, he got a call from the young lad. Apparently he was upset because in the state the box was sent to him, java was turned off. This upset him as he was used to going to certain sites to play java Tetris or some such nonsense. Well, my friend refused to tell him how to turn it back on. Saying instead to figure it out for himself. He never did. He just gave up. It's still not on.
This kid isn't alone. My ex-girlfriend is currently going to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University studying Aerospace Engineering (literally rocket science). When Napster shut down, she ran to me to help her find MP3s. With much reluctance, I set up a Gnutella client for her. She had trouble using it. Then when ERAU blocked whatever port it used, she was completely lost. She no longer downloads MP3s. She's 19 years old and quite bright. But she's lost when it comes to computers.
I don't know where you are meeting all these kids that swarm all over Linux, but it sure isn't anywhere *I've* ever lived. Most kids today think they're "leet" by using macro programs in AOL chat rooms. Why? Because a big percentage of kids today aren't evolving beyond AOL. Let alone ditching windows for Linux.
These examples above serve to illustrate a trend:
15 or so years ago, being computer literate meant knowing how to program. Then it meant understanding a command line file system. Then it meant being able to navigate a GUI. It's rapidly reaching the point where it will mean being able to use a handful of standard applications such as AOL, Office, and Solitaire.
You're anti-Microsoft bias comes through loud and clear in your post. Wake up!!! This isn't *about* Microsoft. Making things easy for the novice user isn't something only Microsoft is trying to achieve. It's something EVERY software company with a product aimed at the novice user are trying to achieve. If they're not, they're fools. It just so happens that Microsoft is one of the leaders in that field with OSes. Weather it's because Windows is what people are used to, or weather it really is more intuitive is debatable, of course.
You're right, times *do* change. But you're absolutely backwards in your assertation that making things harder will encourage people to learn more and will make people embrace a technology. There is a difference between core usability and extended feature sets. The idea, weather you're designing a car or an OS is to make the basic usability foremost and s-i-m-p-l-e. Then you can start adding bells and whistles so long as they are not necessary to use the basic product.
Just replying to my own post because my misguided atempt at humor went wrong (damned Mozilla).
In both instances of "helluva well?"
The "?" should have been a (TM) symbol.
For some reason, it didn't post that way.
Just clarifying in case since it looked bugg-eyed confusing to me.
Why is everyone trying to shoehorn Linux into something it's bad at? I use Red Hat Linux exclusivly for my web servers. It scales well, I'm happy with it's security and it simply works helluva well? in that capacity.
However, I use exclusivly Win32 on the desktop. I have a digital studio box that uses Me, and will soon be upgrading that to XP. A couple dev boxen with 2000, and an older box with 98se. For my needs Win32 works helluva well? on the desktop. (Not to mention that I like to play games).
Now, *I* use win32, because I have a choice and I pick win32. But that's not why I think this is a bad (and stupid) idea.
Show of hands, how many of you have parents and grandparents could go to work tomorrow and use *nix without a hitch instead of Win32?
Business want their workers to be *productive*. And yes, I know you can argue that many of the powerful features found in *nix desktops make a user *more* productive. But only the top 5% or so that will ever figure them out. I'd venture to guess that 99% of *windows* users never figure out *it's* features.
Right clickable context menus are something that the average secretary or insurance broker or customer service rep has probably never heard of.
The file structure on win32 is a mystery to these workers. If their copy of word somehow winds up pointing to a diffrent working directory than C:/My Documents/ then half of them will have no prayer of navigating back to where it was and will declare their files "lost". Until someone comes along and fixes it for them.
It all boils down to this: If I gave my mother a Porche 911 Twin Turbo tomorrow, I know that she would drive it to work every day exactly the same as she drives her Subaru Outback station wagon. It's only certain people that will take advantage of the extra power. This analogy isn't less applicable to computers, it's MORE applicable.
The point? Win32 is easier than *nix. And Win32 is STILL TOO HARD for the masses. Yes, I am well aware of the fact that your average geek can use it. Your average IT guy can use it, but they're not 99% of officeworkers world wide. So why would you want to take a step backwards and make these poor saps use somethign that will make them hate computers even more?
It seems a lot like cutting off your own nose to spite Microsoft's Face to me.
True. I forgot about that. I totally picked bad examples of both directors' work. If I remember correctly, Kuberick never did a film outside of Europe as he had a fear of flying. Kuberick may not have been very Hollywood in his methods but at least with Full Metal Jacket, it was just pure entertainment war movie fluff (in that regard it was Hollywood). Contrast that with most of Spielberg's work after Empire of the Sun, and it's not very Hollywood at all. I of course am refering to Saving Private Ryan, Empire Of The Sun, Schindler's List, etc. His films that had a purpose other than just to entertain. Oh sure, with people like Hanks involved, it seems like just another hollywood war flick. But have you ever sat down and watched that film? Or better yet, have you ever sat down and spoken to a World War II vet who's seen the film? I have. And the reaction I got from a man who's served America as infantry grunt in North Africa, later a fighter pilot over Europe, then fighting the Nazis on the Ground again after being shot down over occupied France. He would later serve in Korea, and then again in Vietnam as a Colonel commanding an Air Force fighter wing. The reaction I got from that man said more about that film than any critic or holier than thou, it's-from-the-establishment-therefore-it's-artisti cly-inferior criticizm ever will.
With all respect to Mr. Kuberick, I loved most of his work, including Full Metal Jacket. (I can quote most of it from memory) But Full Metal Jacket was just a movie. Just entertainment. Films like Saving Private Ryan are more than that. And they are rare indeed. Doubly so in Hollywood. Full Metal Jacket didn't show off Kuberick's genius. It was a film I enjoyed, but I really believe that it was just Hollywood level fodder for the masses.
How's this for a better example, Saving Private Ryan vs. GI Jane?
Yes, you're absolutly correct on the first count. Only in video games, will missiles do a full 180 and chase something down. The velocity of a missile is just too great to even design it to TRY to track something it's passed. The turning acr would be enormous. Even a shoulder mounted SAM like a Stinger flys at Mach 2.
As for the rescue scene, I haven't seen the film yet, but it isn't nessisarily unrealistic. Remember two key points: 1) The modern helicopter gunship is one of the most formidable weapon systems on the modern battlefiel. They are capable of caryint TOW missiles which will kill tanks, the gattling guns have look-down / shoot-down capability, etc. 2) For a rescue, the rescuing forces would only have to hold off the opposing forces long enough to snatch their target and dust off. Killing the enemy isn't nessisarily required. Pinning him down, or just slowing his advance sufficiently is enough.
I haven't seen it yet, as it's not out in my neck of the woods, but I was able to catch a rather lengthy interview with the filmmaker on National Public Radio. Apparently he's a former cameraman for the Bosnian Army, and much of the movie is based upon his real life experiences in the war. They discussed the film at great length, and it sounds like a real winner. A meaningful war movie of the Saving Private Ryan camp, not the Hollywoodesque Full Metal Jacket camp.
And yes, I did mean to use my +1 bonus, which I almost never do, since I'd really like people to take notice of this film and check it out. Like I said, I have not yet seen it, but if the fimlmaker (his name escapes my memory) can relate a story as well on film as he can in an interview, it promises to be absolutly gripping.
...just a script kiddie school...
*shudder* just a script kiddie school? That scares the willies out of me. As if the "naturally occurring" script kiddies weren't enough, now we need schools to pump them out assembly line style!? I've got these visions of a school full of 12-18 year old script kiddy paramilitaries in nazi-esque uniforms. The "Script kiddy youth" as it were...
Will these students be able to come back for second or third year programs? Year 2: Intro to DDoS? Year 3: Application of DDoS theory? I don't even want to think about it!
This isn't just a school! It's a central command! The script kiddies are organizing!
LOL. I remember that! But (unless it was diffrent in arcades or something) the game was called 'Baseball Stars'.
When isn't it?
When it is.
Damn, link didn't work. I did a preview and everything...
Wolf 359
Perhaps it's because Wolf 359 is the third closest star to our solar system?
Wow, that's quite diffrent than I'd rank them. Though I've always found TNG and DS9 to be my favorites. I rank em something lke this:
ST6:TUC
ST8:FC
ST1:TMP
ST7:G
ST2:TWoK
ST4:TVH
ST3:TSfS
ST9:I
ST5:TVH
Even though I always prefered the 24th century Trek series, 6 tops my list because it was just that undeniably good it suffered from none of the acting problems in many of the others, it had the drama, the plot, and wasn't hokey (although a certain amount of lightness is of course acceptable or even desirable, some of the others were over the top).
As for The Wrath of Kahn, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? It was okay but I have the same criticizm you did of Generations with Lursa and B'Etor. Kahn was in ONE episode. At least the "Klingon chicks with the tits" were recurring villans. They were in probably half a dozen episodes. Look back 30 years before any of the movies were made. Who were the recurring villans in TOS that you wouldn't have to have seen every episode to know? Harry Mudd? Now there's a frightening villan!
Next, I've got ST1. I dunno, I loved that one. Especially where they find out what V'Ger was. That was just great. The diffrence between it and the rest of the TOS movies (Except 6) seemed to me that it wasn't trying to be just liek the good old days of the series. This was a crew that was thrust back together for a crisis, not just another episode with better effects.
Next, for Generations, I liked this one. I liked how they included the Enterprise B, I liked everything except for the fact that the villan didn't seem larger than life liek a villian in a Trek feature film should. (Though he did remind me of my JROTC Colonel, so that was fun). As for how kirk died, yeah, it lacked drama. But it allowed "private time" between the two captains so that there could be closure. I also loved (and was probably shocked the same way TOS fans were at the end of TWoK) how the Enterprise is destroyed.
I had TWoK next, and it would have been higher, but really, I never thought Kahn was a very impressive villan. Strike that. He is impressive. But not make-a-movie-about-it impressive. But despite that, it did make for some very entertaining trek, especially on the surface of the dust planet and the starship battle.
The Voyage home was next, because it was light and entertaining and just better than the other two remaining films.
The Search For Spock was lame. Like the bad episodes where they over use a plot device like the transporter to make the crew into children or animals or transport them into a parallel universe. Just hokey.
As for Insurection, I would have had no problem with it, if it had been an episode. It feels like an episode. I dunno, I just feel that the films should be important. Something BIG shoudl be on the line. Insurection just had this unremarkable away mission episode feel to it. Nothing wrong with it, but it should never have been a feature film.
Then we have 5... oh dear, 5.
What can I say about a film where they go to the edge of the galaxy to try and find God? I mean, there's really nothing I can say about... that digit that I shall not mention because it hath been dirtyed by Shatner's directing...
I'm looking forward to Nemesis. I always thought the Romulans v. Next Gen was a movie that needed to be made, but after the Dominion War in DS9, I figured that would never happen. Speaking of which, I'd LOOOVE to see a DS9 film. I didn't particularly like Voyager and I haven't had time to watch Enterprise, but I liked DS9 as much as TNG. I loved how dark it was I loved the characters. And I loved how the universe got turned on it's head by the Dominion War. Too bad it looks like it will never see a film ):
It was just a joke. After some of Russia's previous toubles with space stations, I thought it might be humorous. I *know* they didn't break the space station. But I thought wording it like that would make it obvious to anyone that it was ment humorously. I tell you man, it's those damned Russians! They're bad luck to have on space stations!
Note: Once again, that was ment to be funny.
Sure, if you consider December, 1972 to be "the late 70s".
Seriously, though, with each passing year we learn more. Technology advances as does our understanding of what the trip will take. Every year that passes, the trip becomes easier to embark upon. I doubt very much that man will resist the temptation to explore the solar system for ever.
I fear I am only serving to feed a troll, but what is it that you think? That since it's been 30 years, we'll never visit another world again? Why? Or do you believe that it was all an elaborate hoax? That NASA never sent men to the moon?
If you're not a simple troll, I'd love to hear your line of reasoning.
Wow, that sucks. I'm paying ~ $0.05 / KWH in Central Florida. I forget what I was paying in NJ.
Okay, I'm dumB! You cited your source in your origional post. I'm going to go sit in a corner now...
Just currious, where you got this list. It *looks* right to me. That is to say that it looks liek the top 10 highest grossing movies... but the order seems wrong. For instance, I know that when it was in theaters, Jurrassic Park became the number 1 film, which means that although Titanic could be higher (since it came out later) ET and Star Wars couldn't be... Perhaps what I read didn't account for later home video sales or something. Not saying you're wrong, since it looks so damn right, but it seems to not jive with some of what I've read...
Oh and by the way, great sig.
Actually, this is done already all the time... but by hollywood. When a film is made, the MPAA reviews it and gives it their rating. Frequently, Hollywood will submit a movie and it will come back with an 'R' rating. The studio may decide that an 'R' rating would make them less money by restricting it from a large portion of their target audience, and if they decide that, the movie goes back to editing (sometimes in extreme cases, scenes are re-shot) and a new version is submitted, one that will get them their "target rating". The perfect example of this is the film Basic Instinct. When that film was submitted for review, it became the first movie to recieve the then new, NC-17 rating. The studio decided that since they wanted the money of the under 17 crowd, that they would re-edit it and shoot for an R, which they got. Later that decision was (partially) reversed, when the studio actually released the film in BOTH NC-17 AND R versions to theaters, and home video. So as far as I can tell, this would broaden up the spectrum of available movies for a lot of parrents who are paranoid^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h concerned about their children seeing what they want^h^h^h^h shouldn't.
Now granted, I doubt it will do much for some films, like the Southpark movie or such great "classic" films like Strip to Kill. Seeing as those films would probably be about 8 minutes long and have nothing even resembling plot if they were cut down a rating... But there are THOUSANDS of films out there that only have content that people find objectionable for their children to watch in a couple scenes which can be cut without significantly dammaging the plot. Take one of my favorite films for example, Top Gun. Most people would probably think that the violence is the worst part of the film, but there is lots of language that I never even realized would have to be cut for TV. I just never thought of it when enjoying the film. Everything form "Mother Goose, you Pussy!" to "You'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong" Most parrents don't mind their kids seeing violence as long as it's not overly graphic. But lots of parrents DO mind swearing in movies because their children tend to emmulate it. They tend to emulate some of the violence too (through play, etc) but for whatever reason, this is more acceptable, but that's another discussion entirly...
Another example, Starship Troopers I think, probably a better example... there are about a dozen scenes in that film that add to the atmosphere of the film, but take nothing important away by being cut. The nude scenes (shower and sex scene), for instance, and some of the more graphic scenes of soilders being literally torn apart. You can have a war movie without these scenes. I personally would rather see the movie as it was intended to be seen, but I can understand the choice of parents that want to control what their kids see. In many ways it's not censorship at all, think of it as browsing the films at 4 or 5 rather than ar -1.