Given the proven nature of tape-based backup (and the anecdotal/proven(?) volatility of optical-disc backup), I figure the enterprise market won't touch these w/ a 10-foot pole - at least not until it's been on the market for many years.
However, the low-end/consumer-level backup market is mostly using CDs and DVDs these days (due to the cost associated w/ tapes/drives). I see that market segment moving to this more or less instantly, while growing at a VERY rapid pace (similarly to what happened with Zip disks/drives about a decade ago).
(And yes, I am assuming that this won't hit the market for a few years - however, given that the biggest standard drives are about 250GB now - and uncommon - it seems unlikely that drives will commonly be much larger than 2 TB 4 or 5 years out, such that HVD would be an inconvenient backup solution (compare the inconvenience of backing up a 40GB drive -> 10 DVDs, vs. a 4 TVB drive -> 4 HVDs).
The above presumes that they can get the tech out there for a market appropriate price - while the article doesn't shed much light on pricing, I can't imagine that new HVD media would cost too much (prob. a similar prive curve to DVD). However, the price-friendliness of the servo-technology they describe is pretty much an unproven quantiy, so who know how much the players/burners will go for...
Whether the media companies follow-suit and use the media to distribute movies (i.e. create compatible players), I have no idea. However, people will lilely be backing those movies up on these HVDs, even if only to re-burn to MPAA-approved-media-of-the-week later, as I don't see digital distribution of (uncompressed, un-DRM-encumbered) digital HD coming down the pike anytime soon.
Sorry, that's oversimplifying the (still ongoing) situation.
The governor is entangled in corruption scandals - whether he's culpable in these is yet to be proven; he is also entangled in a sex scandal (hmosexual affair while in a hetero marriage), which he has publicly admitted to. He has also announced his intention to step down.
Your statement only makes sense in the context that the corruption scandals have been validated (i.e. it's currently just as "accurate" to dismiss all reporting on possible corruption as "vicious partisan rumor-mongering").
So while the situation is still ongoing it's VERY misleading to imply that it's been settled (the gov. hasn't even stepped down yet, for heaven's sake).
Or, in other words, please get your facts straight.
Unfortunately, this assumes that the patent system is un-gameable, at least in regards to extending patents durations. That's very wrong; there are many ways to subtly, not to mention overtly "extend" a patent's duration, and these are most explotable by those who have the $ to put into an extended patent process (i.e. large companies w/ patent lawyers on retainer).
Simply put, patents on non-physical inventions should be abandoned entirely or have a drastically shorter, less extensible lifespan. While 17+ years is still a justifiably lifespan for a product requiring physical manufacturing techniques, given the prerequisites for introducing a new manufacturing process/product to market, those prerequisites do not apply to software production, which may be put into "mass production" at effectively negligible costs.
Putting aside the whole "personal experience extrapolated to general applicability" fallacy, there are several variables that you don't discuss here that are relvant t your assertion:
Did your rcomputer also have MS Office installed (like the Windows computers)?
And was yuor computer configured and serviced by lab technicians (you stated that you used this in a lab...)
Finally, what was your prior experience with computers? (i.e. what did you use the Mac / other computers for?)
Just like your checking account vanishing, those are real people who would be hurt if Microsoft suddenly said "fuck profit!"
While I agree with the bulk of your assessment, I don't think that the parent is arguing to "fuck profit" per se; rather he is arguing against the hyperprioritization of "profit" vs. other factors that benefit a company's success, including:
sustainable long-term growth (versus short-term blow-out growth, which often results in profit busts)
customer satisfaction (leads to brand loyalty, hence to sustainable growth during good times, and pulls one through during the lean times)
creating goodwill within the industry (makes it easier to do business when other companies will do business with you with motivations other than fear and (well, in addition to) greed)
diversifying profit base (enables flexibility in avoiding dead-end business models)
Note that none of the above conflict with anything other than short-term profit maximization (which is often at odds with long-term profit maximization - for example, by selling off a company's assets);
In the case of MS, the external perception of the company's unwillingness to prioritize anything above market share (as an engine to drive profit) is a source of disgust for some industry observers (incl. Slashdot), while others see it as an admirable degree of focus for such a large business.
Whether there is a problem in the fact that the perception of those inside the company does not match that of those outside the company, is an interesting question.
Here's 3 reasons that "he's not bush" is a good enough reason on its own:
- elections with an incumbent in the running are typically referendums on that incumbent; otherwise, the democratic lesson of "do what the people want or your toast" does not get impressed upon the political classes. pretending otherwise is silly.
- Kerry's personal, public, and professional history, experience and character are very unlike that of Bush; this implies that he is more likely govern differently than Bush (he's REALLY not Bush)
- The Republication party currently holds the greatest influence in all three branches of government - and have accomplished jack with this influence. casting some power to the other major party (i.e. voting against Bush = voting against his party) provides stimulus that might enable some actual governing to get done. or have you not noticed how much immediately significant legislation (i.e. the budget) has been held up by failed Republican boondoggles like the marriage amendment) ?
A better way to put it is that he/his speechwriters choose technically correct language which is very easily misinterpreted by those not paying VERY careful attention.
The best examples of this are his very frequent statements regarding an Iraq- Al Quaeda "relationship". Based on the facts, these statements should be ignored/dismissed outright (as the Iraq-AlQ "relationship" consisted of initial communications that led nowhere, let alone an active working relationship), whereas these statements are presented in a context in which they are easily mis-interpreted as the (very false, but only implied, never explicitly stated) conclusion that an active, working relationship did exist between Iraq and AlQ. In this case, either Bush is repeating nonsense for the sheer aesthetic pleasure of it, or he's sloganeering with the intention to deceive.
Besides, wasn't Bush the guy who presented himself as a "straight shooter" who "says what he means"? Broad statements presented broadly are interpreted broadly - not "carefully parsed". The people who are misinterpreting him are actually receiving the intended message.
Also, if it's OK for Bush to engage in broad overstatement, then how is it not OK for a/. poster (the guy who said "they've called the geneva conventions "invalid" for a while now") to not engage in the same broad overstatement? Don't the same rhetorical rules apply to both?
(and yes, "broad overstatement" is typically bad - my point is the consistent application of rhetorical and logical standards.)
Good point - the problem is that It's less a matter of proving it hardcore fans (i.e. me and, apparently, yourself) than proving it to Hollywood executives with lots of $, a fear of losing that $, and little actual knowledge of what the audience is actually interested in seeing... (or a pompous and unspoken confidence that they can market predictable crap to an audience more easily than a quality product). I'm still amazed that Hollywood doesn't attempt scientific polling to test movie concepts on the general public - most of their "testing" is to fine-tune/fix a semi-finished->finished product, but that's what you get in such a basically dysfunctional industry.
Totally unrelated: the opening of the Silmarillion could be very nicely served using a (differently stylized) general animation techniques used in richard Linkater's "Waking Life".
Given the hude upfront cost of producing LOTR, there was really no chance of a live-action mini-series being put together (even given the much larger economic returns of "blockbuster" movies vs. "blockbuster" mini-series, LOTR was very much considered a bad, bad investment on New Line Cinema's part prior to FOTR's release).
Howevber, given the movie's huge success (2.8 billion+ worldwide theatrical take for the trilogy, - $400+ million for production & marketing = lotsa $), the economics of Middle-Earth/Fantasy-related storytelling have undergone a huge boom. Still, this only makes a mini-series adaptation a possibility.
At least, it will require several (5+) years (for the concept to seem "fresh" and for the FX to get cheaper (and ideally to ride the wave of a "Hobbit" theatrical release) before a mini-series has a real chance of happening. And should this happen, keep in mind that it likely never would've happened without the theatrical versions of LOTR.
Given all that, I'd love to see a mini-series version of LOTR; then again, I'd probably also sit through a 9-hour theatrical adaptation of Tolkien's Silmarillion.;)
FOTR theatrical: ~ 3 hours FOTR EE: ~ 3 hours, 30 minutes (not counting the "fan credits" tacked to the end, which take a -long- time to run) diff: 30 minutes
(The "Scouring..." chapter was never filmed (outside of a series of "hommage" shots shown in the "Mirror of Galadriel" sequence of FOTR; however, scenes depicting the fate of Saruman himself have been announced for inclusion.)
For FOTR and TTT the new footage was re-integrated into the main film, and significant parts of the score re-recorded to accomodate these changes.
As someone who has watched both the theatrical and EE cuts multiple times (and expierenced the "Trilogy Tuesday" oening of ROTK last December), I am confident that the ROTK EE will improve the pacing and characterization issues of ROTK (that also afflicted FOTR and TTT) in the same way that the EEs improved those films*.
While additional eye candy and additional treats for those who want to see "more of the books" onscreen are more or less a given for these EEs, it's actually the pacing changes and deeper characterization thatmakes the EEs improvements over the theatrical cuts.
* For those who wonder about the whole "EEs feel shorter" assertion, here's a quick explanation: while the EEs are longer in timespan, the more measured pacing in the EEs gives more chances to the audience to breathe and "catch up" with the events of the film, while becoming more familiar with the characters; more varied pacing allows the audience to re-engage and become more involved with the characters and their experiences, thereby extending their patience for long sequences and making the film "feel shorter" to them despite the longer running time.
I may get some particulars wrong as I'm not a TIVO subscriber, but there appear to be misconceptions on both sides of this argument...
- 6 dollars a month for the rest of your life
Something tells me that this won't stay $6 forever;) (not that I think it'll necessarily go much higher)
- Even if you need to buy all new hardware, thats a payback time of 1-2 years
Based on what measurement?
- Plus you'll never need to buy a new pc.
right. unless you want more storage space. or a component dies. or the standards change (in which case you'd need a new TIVO as well, but either way "evolving standards"/obsolensce'll getcha)
- If you want the latest cool feature, just update the software....except when the new cool feature requires new hardware... also, TIVO updates its sofware semi-regularly (tho usu not as flexibly as a PC-solution)
- And I don't want to pay for a lifetime contract, what if Tivo goes out of business?
this I'm interested in hearing more about - what are the optional TIVO contracts? (yes, I'm too lazy to look them up).
I hadn't really thought about the shared db issue, I think that's a good idea... there are some general issues around broadcasting/syndication that add complexity to the set-up - different edits of shows in syndication (different content edits/different commercial insertion points), determining the "start point" for the show - still, nothing that can't be overcome (once it's understood that this is a bit more complex than, say, CDDB).
While I can only testify to the effectiveness of their USB recorder, I feel the need to give a big thumbs-up to the company that has made my TV watching both more efficient and enjoyable.
At some point in my theoretically $-solvent future I plan to upgrade to one of the FW-based options, and the HDTV version looks pretty schweet.:)
That said, particular "advanced" options I'd like to see in the EyeTV software (which is fundamentally similar in interface across hardware versions) include some degree of automated commercial-marking/trimming for archived programs, either based on templates (many shows commonly feature commericals at consistent breakpoints during the broadcast, which obviously lends itself to a template-based solution), or recognition of particular image(s) (many networks use consistent "bumpers", which can be used (via image-recognition) to mark the beginning and end-points of commercials.
Given a chunk of time it's possible that I could put something like this together on my own (yay for EG using standards-based video!), but given the current success of their interface efforts, I'm confident that any set-up which they integrate would be superior to any external hack.
Your suggestions would make it trivial for NYT/LATimes/WaPo/et al to ignore/redirect traffic coming from bugmenot.com.
By _not_ automating their system they make it more effective (i.e. make sure that the onus of blocking their efforts is on the registration end, not their end).
After all, while it's possible for any of these newspapers/etc. to write a custom app to extract the bugmenot.com data and cancel those accounts; however, that's significantly more work (that must be redone everytime that bugmenot.com changes formatting) vs. trivally filtering registrations originating from bugmenot.com.
Consider this social engineering (vs. technical).
Re:Quote from the article
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
Are you aware that you just parroted one of the oft-used legal justifications for the peeling away of FCC regulations on boradcast networks which (unlike cable networks) make use of the airwaves (a public trust)?
The problem isn't the existence of biased media outlets; the problem is the lack of a central reference point that at least strives towards representing an unbiased viewpoint, in order to enable citizens to recognize the effects of bias (overt or otherwise) when they encounter it in other media.
Or have you not noticed that there was no "major league" overtly biased media outlets on cable prior to network deregulation?
Lowered expectations opened the barn door...
Re:Quote from the article
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
OK, let's get specific then.
Please back up the assertion by demonstrating the equivalence of the freedom enjoyed by the early 70s Washington Post's (took down Nixon by breaking the Watergate story while FCC rules were still in strong effect) and the "freedom" available to Pravda during that same period.
Re:Quote from the article
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
That's a good job summarizing my point, thanks!
Re:Quote from the article
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I appreciate constructive criticism.
Constructive criticism should be informed by context.
The soviet union was a totalitarian state with no concept of freedom of the press - Pravda was an organ of state propaganda.
The U.S. is a democratic republic with a legislated tradition of freedom of the press.
Therefore, comparisons between the FCC-constrained media outlets and the USSR's Pravda are strained, at best.
Please try again.
Re:Quote from the article
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This relates to the (frivolous, IMHO)/. thread regarding shutting down the FCC from last week.
The FCC used to be one of the major forces behind (reasonably) centrist, balanced news printing and broadcasting. This was accomplished by means of limiting ownership (preventing the sort of mega-and-vertical consolidation we see today) and requiring that opposing viewpoints be heard (on controversional issues, not factual matters as some people mistakenly believe).
However, due to congressional (primarily large-corporation-funded) lobbying over the the last several decades, these restrictions have been mostly neutered, if not struck down outright.
The removal of the FCC as a force to be reckoned with has enabled the conversion of cable/network news broadcasts (formerly required by the FCC in exchange for the use of the airwaves) into profit-oriented, and therefore market-oriented "news" dissemination centers
Genuine investigation and reporting has been severely downplayed in favor of sensationally appealing to the biases (and esp. playing off the fears) of the station's perceived-as-profitable market segment. Broadcasting "news" that contradicts their market segment's biases does not serve their profit goals, and so such news is downplayed (if not outright ignored) whenever possible.
The result has been the rise of deliberately (if not always overtly) biased news media, for whom formerly prized journalistic standards are at best a secondary concern, if they are a consideration at all.
Note that the above is a natural outcome of a market-oriented news media, versus a news media who is made to see itself as ultimately answerable to the public as a whole.
Government regulation was good for the media, at least insofar as new boradcasting was concerned - it enabled the sustenance of a news media that at least tried to get the facts behind the story. The failures of the past system are nothing compared to the failures of today's system.
The more mature a medium, the more knowledge of how to use it effectively is available. Painting is a very mature medium in regards to rendering the human figure (and has been for hundreds of years) - in comparison, CGI is a toddler at best. CGI has had only about 30 years to develop into an accessible medium, let alone being building any sense of tradition and shared knowledge.
Stylization is much more accepted in painting than in CGI; most anyone with art histroy training would likely be able to point out deviations from "the real" in the paintings you're thinking of (and even more effectively point out deviations between different styles).
Painting is based on creating an image on flat surface, which provides the artist with an abundance of "tricks" that would not work "in the real world" (I'm not talking about Escher here, I'm talking about ostensibly "realistic" imagery such as Titian, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Carravagio, etc.). Most CGI is developed with a bottom-up process in which an internally consistent world of details is a requirement (for example, Michelangelo's David is disproportional - it's made to be seen from below, and M. accounted for perspective by increasing the size of the statue's shoulders and head. Most CGI characters are created as a single model with a requirement of viewability "from any angle". Therefore the David trick would probably not be considered, let alone implemented, by a CGI artist.)
Finally, CGI embraces photorealism above all other visual approaches. Look up some photrealistic works, there's LOTS of creepiness there. Human beings simply filter out much of the visual detail that's see-able - being confronted with all of that detail is an often unsettling experience.
Pardon, I didn't intend this as a slam - I just wanted to point out the items not included in your listing - which in the case of the Mac is a few hardware pieces (Firewire, WiFI card slot, special cooling system, aesthetics) plus the mentioned software.
In this case a complete comparison supports your position that Gnu users save $ by going with a BYOB solution, while "average" users save effort with the G5, which is why I posted in the first place.
you left out firewire 400/800 card and modem (don't believe that these are on the mobo).
does this support digitial audio i/o?
how is WiFI supported? (can it use a card, or does it have to take up a PCI slot?)
how much to add software equivalent to the following: iLife (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand), Art Directors Toolkit, EarthLink TotalAccess 2004, GraphicConverter, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, QuickBooks for Mac New User Edition, Zinio Reader, Mail, iChat AV, Safari, Sherlock, Address Book, QuickTime, iSync, iCal, DVD Player, Classic environment, Xcode Developer Tools
esp: iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, QuickBooks
also, if you're using windows that cost should be added in
also, there's the warrantee and online service with the G5.
finally, you left out shipping costs (unless you can get those prices locally)
Slashdot Mirror
...on the consumer end.
Given the proven nature of tape-based backup (and the anecdotal/proven(?) volatility of optical-disc backup), I figure the enterprise market won't touch these w/ a 10-foot pole - at least not until it's been on the market for many years.
However, the low-end/consumer-level backup market is mostly using CDs and DVDs these days (due to the cost associated w/ tapes/drives). I see that market segment moving to this more or less instantly, while growing at a VERY rapid pace (similarly to what happened with Zip disks/drives about a decade ago).
(And yes, I am assuming that this won't hit the market for a few years - however, given that the biggest standard drives are about 250GB now - and uncommon - it seems unlikely that drives will commonly be much larger than 2 TB 4 or 5 years out, such that HVD would be an inconvenient backup solution (compare the inconvenience of backing up a 40GB drive -> 10 DVDs, vs. a 4 TVB drive -> 4 HVDs).
The above presumes that they can get the tech out there for a market appropriate price - while the article doesn't shed much light on pricing, I can't imagine that new HVD media would cost too much (prob. a similar prive curve to DVD). However, the price-friendliness of the servo-technology they describe is pretty much an unproven quantiy, so who know how much the players/burners will go for...
Whether the media companies follow-suit and use the media to distribute movies (i.e. create compatible players), I have no idea. However, people will lilely be backing those movies up on these HVDs, even if only to re-burn to MPAA-approved-media-of-the-week later, as I don't see digital distribution of (uncompressed, un-DRM-encumbered) digital HD coming down the pike anytime soon.
Sorry, that's oversimplifying the (still ongoing) situation.
The governor is entangled in corruption scandals - whether he's culpable in these is yet to be proven; he is also entangled in a sex scandal (hmosexual affair while in a hetero marriage), which he has publicly admitted to. He has also announced his intention to step down.
Your statement only makes sense in the context that the corruption scandals have been validated (i.e. it's currently just as "accurate" to dismiss all reporting on possible corruption as "vicious partisan rumor-mongering").
So while the situation is still ongoing it's VERY misleading to imply that it's been settled (the gov. hasn't even stepped down yet, for heaven's sake).
Or, in other words, please get your facts straight.
I use the term Indian, with one of the following qualifiers:
"dot-not-feather"
or
"feather-not-dot".
I get to offend two groups at once!
Unfortunately, this assumes that the patent system is un-gameable, at least in regards to extending patents durations. That's very wrong; there are many ways to subtly, not to mention overtly "extend" a patent's duration, and these are most explotable by those who have the $ to put into an extended patent process (i.e. large companies w/ patent lawyers on retainer).
Simply put, patents on non-physical inventions should be abandoned entirely or have a drastically shorter, less extensible lifespan. While 17+ years is still a justifiably lifespan for a product requiring physical manufacturing techniques, given the prerequisites for introducing a new manufacturing process/product to market, those prerequisites do not apply to software production, which may be put into "mass production" at effectively negligible costs.
I certainly agree with your final point, though!
Putting aside the whole "personal experience extrapolated to general applicability" fallacy, there are several variables that you don't discuss here that are relvant t your assertion:
Did your rcomputer also have MS Office installed (like the Windows computers)?
And was yuor computer configured and serviced by lab technicians (you stated that you used this in a lab...)
Finally, what was your prior experience with computers? (i.e. what did you use the Mac / other computers for?)
While I agree with the bulk of your assessment, I don't think that the parent is arguing to "fuck profit" per se; rather he is arguing against the hyperprioritization of "profit" vs. other factors that benefit a company's success, including:
Note that none of the above conflict with anything other than short-term profit maximization (which is often at odds with long-term profit maximization - for example, by selling off a company's assets);
In the case of MS, the external perception of the company's unwillingness to prioritize anything above market share (as an engine to drive profit) is a source of disgust for some industry observers (incl. Slashdot), while others see it as an admirable degree of focus for such a large business.
Whether there is a problem in the fact that the perception of those inside the company does not match that of those outside the company, is an interesting question.
Despite the fact that you're obviously trolling, it's quite obvious that you've never used Lotus Notes.
If you had, then you'd swap "shoot... with a gun" to "force to use Lotus Notes".
Here's 3 reasons that "he's not bush" is a good enough reason on its own:
- elections with an incumbent in the running are typically referendums on that incumbent; otherwise, the democratic lesson of "do what the people want or your toast" does not get impressed upon the political classes. pretending otherwise is silly.
- Kerry's personal, public, and professional history, experience and character are very unlike that of Bush; this implies that he is more likely govern differently than Bush (he's REALLY not Bush)
- The Republication party currently holds the greatest influence in all three branches of government - and have accomplished jack with this influence. casting some power to the other major party (i.e. voting against Bush = voting against his party) provides stimulus that might enable some actual governing to get done. or have you not noticed how much immediately significant legislation (i.e. the budget) has been held up by failed Republican boondoggles like the marriage amendment) ?
this is a bit offtopic, but... I call bullshit.
/. poster (the guy who said "they've called the geneva conventions "invalid" for a while now") to not engage in the same broad overstatement? Don't the same rhetorical rules apply to both?
"He parses his words carefully"?
A better way to put it is that he/his speechwriters choose technically correct language which is very easily misinterpreted by those not paying VERY careful attention.
The best examples of this are his very frequent statements regarding an Iraq- Al Quaeda "relationship". Based on the facts, these statements should be ignored/dismissed outright (as the Iraq-AlQ "relationship" consisted of initial communications that led nowhere, let alone an active working relationship), whereas these statements are presented in a context in which they are easily mis-interpreted as the (very false, but only implied, never explicitly stated) conclusion that an active, working relationship did exist between Iraq and AlQ. In this case, either Bush is repeating nonsense for the sheer aesthetic pleasure of it, or he's sloganeering with the intention to deceive.
Besides, wasn't Bush the guy who presented himself as a "straight shooter" who "says what he means"? Broad statements presented broadly are interpreted broadly - not "carefully parsed". The people who are misinterpreting him are actually receiving the intended message.
Also, if it's OK for Bush to engage in broad overstatement, then how is it not OK for a
(and yes, "broad overstatement" is typically bad - my point is the consistent application of rhetorical and logical standards.)
in some circumstances, what you refer to as "group think" is referred to as "consensus". similar definition, very different connotation.
/. moderation system encourages.
the more interesting question is which of these the
Good point - the problem is that It's less a matter of proving it hardcore fans (i.e. me and, apparently, yourself) than proving it to Hollywood executives with lots of $, a fear of losing that $, and little actual knowledge of what the audience is actually interested in seeing... (or a pompous and unspoken confidence that they can market predictable crap to an audience more easily than a quality product). I'm still amazed that Hollywood doesn't attempt scientific polling to test movie concepts on the general public - most of their "testing" is to fine-tune/fix a semi-finished->finished product, but that's what you get in such a basically dysfunctional industry.
Totally unrelated: the opening of the Silmarillion could be very nicely served using a (differently stylized) general animation techniques used in richard Linkater's "Waking Life".
Given the hude upfront cost of producing LOTR, there was really no chance of a live-action mini-series being put together (even given the much larger economic returns of "blockbuster" movies vs. "blockbuster" mini-series, LOTR was very much considered a bad, bad investment on New Line Cinema's part prior to FOTR's release).
;)
Howevber, given the movie's huge success (2.8 billion+ worldwide theatrical take for the trilogy, - $400+ million for production & marketing = lotsa $), the economics of Middle-Earth/Fantasy-related storytelling have undergone a huge boom. Still, this only makes a mini-series adaptation a possibility.
At least, it will require several (5+) years (for the concept to seem "fresh" and for the FX to get cheaper (and ideally to ride the wave of a "Hobbit" theatrical release) before a mini-series has a real chance of happening. And should this happen, keep in mind that it likely never would've happened without the theatrical versions of LOTR.
Given all that, I'd love to see a mini-series version of LOTR; then again, I'd probably also sit through a 9-hour theatrical adaptation of Tolkien's Silmarillion.
Here's the general info:
FOTR theatrical: ~ 3 hours
FOTR EE: ~ 3 hours, 30 minutes (not counting the "fan credits" tacked to the end, which take a -long- time to run)
diff: 30 minutes
TTT theatrical: ~ 3 hours
TTT EE: ~ 3 hours, 40 minutes
diff: 40 minutes
ROTK theatrical: ~ 3 hours, 20 minutes (incl. 8 minutes of credits)
ROTK EE (announced): ~ 4 hours, 10 minutes
diff: 50 minutes
(The "Scouring..." chapter was never filmed (outside of a series of "hommage" shots shown in the "Mirror of Galadriel" sequence of FOTR; however, scenes depicting the fate of Saruman himself have been announced for inclusion.)
For FOTR and TTT the new footage was re-integrated into the main film, and significant parts of the score re-recorded to accomodate these changes.
As someone who has watched both the theatrical and EE cuts multiple times (and expierenced the "Trilogy Tuesday" oening of ROTK last December), I am confident that the ROTK EE will improve the pacing and characterization issues of ROTK (that also afflicted FOTR and TTT) in the same way that the EEs improved those films*.
While additional eye candy and additional treats for those who want to see "more of the books" onscreen are more or less a given for these EEs, it's actually the pacing changes and deeper characterization thatmakes the EEs improvements over the theatrical cuts.
* For those who wonder about the whole "EEs feel shorter" assertion, here's a quick explanation: while the EEs are longer in timespan, the more measured pacing in the EEs gives more chances to the audience to breathe and "catch up" with the events of the film, while becoming more familiar with the characters; more varied pacing allows the audience to re-engage and become more involved with the characters and their experiences, thereby extending their patience for long sequences and making the film "feel shorter" to them despite the longer running time.
I may get some particulars wrong as I'm not a TIVO subscriber, but there appear to be misconceptions on both sides of this argument...
;) (not that I think it'll necessarily go much higher)
...except when the new cool feature requires new hardware... also, TIVO updates its sofware semi-regularly (tho usu not as flexibly as a PC-solution)
- 6 dollars a month for the rest of your life
Something tells me that this won't stay $6 forever
- Even if you need to buy all new hardware, thats a payback time of 1-2 years
Based on what measurement?
- Plus you'll never need to buy a new pc.
right. unless you want more storage space. or a component dies. or the standards change (in which case you'd need a new TIVO as well, but either way "evolving standards"/obsolensce'll getcha)
- If you want the latest cool feature, just update the software.
- And I don't want to pay for a lifetime contract, what if Tivo goes out of business?
this I'm interested in hearing more about - what are the optional TIVO contracts? (yes, I'm too lazy to look them up).
I hadn't really thought about the shared db issue, I think that's a good idea... there are some general issues around broadcasting/syndication that add complexity to the set-up - different edits of shows in syndication (different content edits/different commercial insertion points), determining the "start point" for the show - still, nothing that can't be overcome (once it's understood that this is a bit more complex than, say, CDDB).
While I can only testify to the effectiveness of their USB recorder, I feel the need to give a big thumbs-up to the company that has made my TV watching both more efficient and enjoyable.
:)
At some point in my theoretically $-solvent future I plan to upgrade to one of the FW-based options, and the HDTV version looks pretty schweet.
That said, particular "advanced" options I'd like to see in the EyeTV software (which is fundamentally similar in interface across hardware versions) include some degree of automated commercial-marking/trimming for archived programs, either based on templates (many shows commonly feature commericals at consistent breakpoints during the broadcast, which obviously lends itself to a template-based solution), or recognition of particular image(s) (many networks use consistent "bumpers", which can be used (via image-recognition) to mark the beginning and end-points of commercials.
Given a chunk of time it's possible that I could put something like this together on my own (yay for EG using standards-based video!), but given the current success of their interface efforts, I'm confident that any set-up which they integrate would be superior to any external hack.
Your suggestions would make it trivial for NYT/LATimes/WaPo/et al to ignore/redirect traffic coming from bugmenot.com.
By _not_ automating their system they make it more effective (i.e. make sure that the onus of blocking their efforts is on the registration end, not their end).
After all, while it's possible for any of these newspapers/etc. to write a custom app to extract the bugmenot.com data and cancel those accounts; however, that's significantly more work (that must be redone everytime that bugmenot.com changes formatting) vs. trivally filtering registrations originating from bugmenot.com.
Consider this social engineering (vs. technical).
Are you aware that you just parroted one of the oft-used legal justifications for the peeling away of FCC regulations on boradcast networks which (unlike cable networks) make use of the airwaves (a public trust)?
The problem isn't the existence of biased media outlets; the problem is the lack of a central reference point that at least strives towards representing an unbiased viewpoint, in order to enable citizens to recognize the effects of bias (overt or otherwise) when they encounter it in other media.
Or have you not noticed that there was no "major league" overtly biased media outlets on cable prior to network deregulation?
Lowered expectations opened the barn door...
OK, let's get specific then.
Please back up the assertion by demonstrating the equivalence of the freedom enjoyed by the early 70s Washington Post's (took down Nixon by breaking the Watergate story while FCC rules were still in strong effect) and the "freedom" available to Pravda during that same period.
That's a good job summarizing my point, thanks!
I appreciate constructive criticism.
Constructive criticism should be informed by context.
The soviet union was a totalitarian state with no concept of freedom of the press - Pravda was an organ of state propaganda.
The U.S. is a democratic republic with a legislated tradition of freedom of the press.
Therefore, comparisons between the FCC-constrained media outlets and the USSR's Pravda are strained, at best.
Please try again.
This relates to the (frivolous, IMHO) /. thread regarding shutting down the FCC from last week.
The FCC used to be one of the major forces behind (reasonably) centrist, balanced news printing and broadcasting. This was accomplished by means of limiting ownership (preventing the sort of mega-and-vertical consolidation we see today) and requiring that opposing viewpoints be heard (on controversional issues, not factual matters as some people mistakenly believe).
However, due to congressional (primarily large-corporation-funded) lobbying over the the last several decades, these restrictions have been mostly neutered, if not struck down outright.
The removal of the FCC as a force to be reckoned with has enabled the conversion of cable/network news broadcasts (formerly required by the FCC in exchange for the use of the airwaves) into profit-oriented, and therefore market-oriented "news" dissemination centers
Genuine investigation and reporting has been severely downplayed in favor of sensationally appealing to the biases (and esp. playing off the fears) of the station's perceived-as-profitable market segment. Broadcasting "news" that contradicts their market segment's biases does not serve their profit goals, and so such news is downplayed (if not outright ignored) whenever possible.
The result has been the rise of deliberately (if not always overtly) biased news media, for whom formerly prized journalistic standards are at best a secondary concern, if they are a consideration at all.
Note that the above is a natural outcome of a market-oriented news media, versus a news media who is made to see itself as ultimately answerable to the public as a whole.
Government regulation was good for the media, at least insofar as new boradcasting was concerned - it enabled the sustenance of a news media that at least tried to get the facts behind the story. The failures of the past system are nothing compared to the failures of today's system.
There's several reasons for this...
The more mature a medium, the more knowledge of how to use it effectively is available. Painting is a very mature medium in regards to rendering the human figure (and has been for hundreds of years) - in comparison, CGI is a toddler at best. CGI has had only about 30 years to develop into an accessible medium, let alone being building any sense of tradition and shared knowledge.
Stylization is much more accepted in painting than in CGI; most anyone with art histroy training would likely be able to point out deviations from "the real" in the paintings you're thinking of (and even more effectively point out deviations between different styles).
Painting is based on creating an image on flat surface, which provides the artist with an abundance of "tricks" that would not work "in the real world" (I'm not talking about Escher here, I'm talking about ostensibly "realistic" imagery such as Titian, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Carravagio, etc.). Most CGI is developed with a bottom-up process in which an internally consistent world of details is a requirement (for example, Michelangelo's David is disproportional - it's made to be seen from below, and M. accounted for perspective by increasing the size of the statue's shoulders and head. Most CGI characters are created as a single model with a requirement of viewability "from any angle". Therefore the David trick would probably not be considered, let alone implemented, by a CGI artist.)
Finally, CGI embraces photorealism above all other visual approaches. Look up some photrealistic works, there's LOTS of creepiness there. Human beings simply filter out much of the visual detail that's see-able - being confronted with all of that detail is an often unsettling experience.
Pardon, I didn't intend this as a slam - I just wanted to point out the items not included in your listing - which in the case of the Mac is a few hardware pieces (Firewire, WiFI card slot, special cooling system, aesthetics) plus the mentioned software.
In this case a complete comparison supports your position that Gnu users save $ by going with a BYOB solution, while "average" users save effort with the G5, which is why I posted in the first place.
you left out firewire 400/800 card and modem (don't believe that these are on the mobo).
does this support digitial audio i/o?
how is WiFI supported? (can it use a card, or does it have to take up a PCI slot?)
how much to add software equivalent to the following:
iLife (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand),
Art Directors Toolkit, EarthLink TotalAccess 2004, GraphicConverter, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, QuickBooks for Mac New User Edition, Zinio Reader, Mail, iChat AV, Safari, Sherlock, Address Book, QuickTime, iSync, iCal, DVD Player, Classic environment, Xcode Developer Tools
esp: iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, QuickBooks
also, if you're using windows that cost should be added in
also, there's the warrantee and online service with the G5.
finally, you left out shipping costs (unless you can get those prices locally)
this narrows the gap somewhat.