Computers are not a 'fairly new tool' in schools. The American education system is only about 150 years old (the first Department of Education being formed in 1867). The current US Dept. of Education began operating in 1980. Computers have been in schools (I'm guessing) since around 1985, maybe earlier.
That's 20 years - a long enough time for the majority of the teachers that were teaching then to become familiar with them in depth, as well as for the newer teachers to have had computers in schools when they were kids themselves.
If the length of time of a practice or tool being employed is an excuse for the lack of performance a specific tool or technique produces, then maybe we should reconsider the educational system. "Outcome-based education has only been commonly practiced for less than 10 years! We need to give it more time to make up for all the damage that the previous methods did!" some proponents of outcome-based education would cry. I'll tell you it's a scarecrow argument, and that the technique evidently isn't working if there aren't results.
No, I think the fact of the situation is that companies have massive advertising campaigns to get schools to buy into the "computers help kids learn" line of bullshit. Yes, they can. But they, in practice, don't - because kids would rather play games, chat, or what have you. That is why computers are in schools. There is no fundamental benefit of having computers in elementry schools, and hardly any for high schools, in my opinion. The focus should be on teaching kids how to read, write, perform mathematical problems, and most importantly, think.
No, our schools have devolved to the point of being not much more than an institutionalized daycare system with systemized distractions to keep the kids from "getting into trouble" (ie, school work), what with shitty and boring worksheets, do-nothing courses, and what have you. It might just be that schools with more computers are more distracted from education from others (ie, "let's spend all the money on the sports team and computers! fuck getting good teachers!"). It might also be that the computers are simply purchased and put in a lab somewhere for kids to use (or not use, because it's always locked - this is the situation in all 3 of the high schools I attended). No, I think computers in school are simply a symptom of the problem: administrators don't give a damn about the actual quality of education, just quantity - if at all. This bleeds off by trying to get the next big fix to keep as many kids in school as possible, and it snowballed into a mess we have now.
Side rant: outcome-based education is, in my opinion, one of the top 5 civil detriments to our society. It pushes those that would normally drop out and become productive (and often competent) laborers or creative business owners to stay in school, raising the cost of keeping someone there that doesn't want to be. It holds back those that want to learn more by not letting them progress at their own rate - because somehow it's not fair to the slow students. In essence, it's everything No Child Left Behind enforces.
They've already done the "first person perspective" before. I believe it was first done in Gladiator, but it's been done in many films since then, where the camera follows the visual path of the protagonist.
Nothing new to see here. I suspect they'll just use that same technique and hold the camera more steady, with smooth(er) movements.
Ohhhhhh so "BFH = Bio Force Gun". I read that fucking article and I had no idea what the hell the Bio Force Gun was. I thought maybe it was something I missed in Doom 3, as I didn't pay close attention to the weapon names.
Damn that's dumb. I hope they don't call it a "Bio Force Gun", just call it "This is the BFH9000" or maybe just show a label somewhere on the barrel or something. What is the official id Software stance on the "BFH" anyway? Is it the "Big Fucking Gun" as tradition dictates, or do they not even really say?
Bio Force Gun, my ass, though. Regardless of the official title, I know nobody that knows it as anything other than the Big Fucking Gun.
I personally have 0 interest in seeing this film now. It's about as much Doom as the SWAT movie was Counter-Strike. It'd be interesting to see how severely they mutate it from the Doom plot/story, but that's about it. Not worth the time or effort.
I'm really quite underwhelmed. The "first person perspective" idea is horrible. The movie has nothing to do with Doom aside from being a "horror" genre title (and really, to be a horror genre title, the lead truly needs to be female. Everyone knows that). How dumb.
If a person likes a product, they will stereotypically only tell 4 of their friends on average.
However, if someone dislikes a product or has a bad experience, they will traditionally tell 20 or more people on average.
I suspect that this 'viral marketing' is needed to help compensate for some of the bad press that many companies get due to lack of quality service. You'd think that they might just spend the extra money and effort on making a product that doesn't suck, wouldn't you? But no, that's not immediate enough for most companies.
It sounds a lot like the marketing strategy used by Apple, to me. And gentoo, to a degree, but that's less of a centralized effort and more of a
I don't know how many times I've had some fool Mac fiend come up to me and my IBM Thinkpad x30 and say something asinine about his iBook or Powerbook being better. I don't notice them going up to the Dell or Gateway owners - I'm guessing they don't see those POS machines as threats to their trendyness.
At any rate, it usually boils down to them saying something along the lines of, "OS X has the power of UNIX" and then going on blathering about how Macs are fundamentally superior to "PCs". This goes on until I've had enough, and I commence to rip a new philosophical ass for him by refuting all the technical mistakes he'd made.
It only seems to piss them off that I run Linux, too. Bloody wankers.
(Note, I've got some Mac-using friends. They're not all zealots, just alike all gentoo folks aren't k1dd13s. I've also got some Gentoo Mac using friends. Please don't kill me.)
It might just be me, but personally, I've never met anyone involved with computers that's worth respecting (ie, not a blathering idiot) that's altruistic. Not in the least. They're almost invarialy condescending and self-important.
Note, don't confuse that with with being conceited. The fact is, they really are better, and thus can condescend to these people's levels.
Not really... In "The Temple of Doom" Nazis aren't central to the movie at all, and it's not as if that movie was terrible.
Actually... yes, yes it was. Between the childish irritation that was Short Round (not terribly similar to man's ideal to have an irritating kid at your heels), the bitchy whine that was Willie, and the stupidity that was the portrayal of Indian culture, it was horrible. That, and the plot was disjointed, the supporting characters couldn't act, there wasn't the "exciting" feel as the other two films had, and the main villian wasn't introduced until after an hour into the film.
He didn't like her, and he constantly tried to leave her behind through the first hour of the film. He hated her, but hey - you're in India and haven't seen a civilized woman for weeks, and you're surrounded by non-women. Whatcha gunna do?
Yes, I'm aware of this part of the story. However, it doesn't explicitly say one way or the other whether or not there was something special about the wookie in question. Surely, as an Imperial officer, he was fairly familiar with standard Imperial practice? It just doesn't make sense that he'd make it to officer from an enlisted man and not see this kind of behavior take place at all, or wait until becoming an officer to take action.
Alien (and Aliens, and Alien 3) isn't an action film. It's a horror film. The horror film stereotype is to have an attractive woman run around trying to escape, sometimes fighting back, until she escapes. Somewhere along the way she loses her clothes. She's then haunted and traumatized by the whole experience until the day she dies. The only films I can think of with strong female leads are horror films (Alien Trilogy, Resident Evil, etc.)
That's the "horror" formula. Now, Alien: Resurrection I have not seen, but was it not more of an action film? I hear it sucked, and IMDB agrees (6/10).
I challenge you to find a single action adventure film that has a strong female hero (and protagonist) that isn't really, really bad. It's not that I don't think good films of the genre don't exist, it's just that I can't think of any I've seen, really, except the very rare exception.
The only exception to this rule I can think of is "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" with *drool* the amazingly sexy Milla Jovovich. (Don't confuse this with "Joan of Arc" which was made the same year, and sucked.) The film does a very good job of "de-sexualizing" her, and not drawing any attention to her feminine side, specifically.
However, it doesn't even fit into the category of action adventure (or even simply adventure - IMDB says "War Drama"). That, and throughout the film she's portrayed in a progressively psychotic, and thus negative, light.
There are a couple other examples I can think of with marginally strong female characters (but none of them are the lead, just supporting characters). Or literature in general, really. There's Lord of the Rings w/ Eowyn, Pirates of the Caribbean with Ms. Swann, The Matrix with Trinity, Star Wars - etc. etc. Still, I can't think of a single action, adventure, or action adventure with a female lead (and by association, a strong female lead). Maybe, maybe Terminator or The Bone Collector, but both those movies involve the female running away helplessly, getting caught, or some other scenario.
Needless to say, action adventure films with strong female leads are rare, and with very little variation, they Suck. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not.
Re:Display Tech is the key.
on
Upbeat on E-books
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That technology is available now in E-ink. The problem is, the company that makes it is only licensing it to fucking Sony, maker of the Librie, which isn't available in the US and has restrictive DRM. (The gumstix, which you may or may not have heard of, is what powers the librie, I believe. It's a gumstick-sized system, basically, using an Intel Xscale.)
Now, we need either a competing, similar technology to compete with the E-ink, or the release of the technology for other companies to work with.
The great hting about the concept of ebooks is, if it ever gets off the ground in a form that is universally accepted, easy to use, and inexpensive (in relation to books and other paper goods, both for the consumer and the producer), it will become almost universally accepted, I think. That's the spectre of technology, and this, I think, would be an ideal representation of such.
In essence, the "paperless society" would probably be much closer to realization. Now, and in the foreseeable future, non-color books will the the main medium for ereaders. Forseeably, all books, magazines, and newspapers will be a viable medium for the devices, and eventually we'll probably see the readers being used to read all manners of paper documents from work, coupons, bills, and what have you.
I'd say the biggest barrier is corporate greed. That greed manifests itself through unreasonable device and book inflation, but mainly through the employment of DRM.
I agree with you completely when you say that a good book (ie, one that's enjoyable ot read) definately are preferable in paper form so you can appreciate it more fully. Text books aren't good for enjoyment because they're written so poorly, and thus they're good for skimming, searching, and the like - ideal for ebooks. But....
Hah! "save on the initial purchase" indeed!
You can count on the prices going up, not down, my friend. The genious at the book companies will think, "Tey, we're giving the students the concenience of a single device with all their books and notes! They should pay for that!" and increase the book price by 20% for ebooks while grandfathering paper textbooks. Oh, and you won't own the books - you'll be leasing them, and your license will expire after a year. That way they won't have to continually make minor revisions to their text, and can use old texts ad nausium at no additional cost to them.
Have you never been to college? Or did you go to college a good many years ago? The practice of making a new edition has been common practice for at least the last 5 years, and likely more like 10 or 15 (or more).
Re:First and Goal for Apple
on
Upbeat on E-books
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hrm. Seems a bit exhorbinantly priced, to me. Otherwise, I agree completely: apple could really get this off the ground,
In my mind, $80-100 is a good ballpark for such a device, with $150 being the possible ceiling. We're talking about a frickin' book reader here, not an MP3 player. Books take up a couple hundred K, a meg or two at best. You could fit an entire personal library's worth of books in a couple hundred megs of space. Not only that, but unlike music or movies, you generally don't need an accessory to play them (DVD player/TV/stereo, CD player/stereo). If people are going to be paying half what a paper book costs (or even 1/3rd - seems the reality is more like 85% or morethough), and you don't actually get a phyiscal copy, you're not going to be wanting to pay several hundred dollars to read it. There's no cost competition there.
The internals would be quite inexpensive in comparision to the iPod, too, in my mind. It need not hold any internal memory beyond that for the OS: a couple hundred kilobytes, at best. It could have internal memory - 32 Mb or so, I guess. The cost for that much memory would be trivial. It would likely be able to run for months worth of reading off of a couple AA batteries (provided it was using an e-ink screen, or similar/equivilant technology). The processor power would also be trivial, because it only takes a couple dozen megahertz at best to parse a document and display it to a screen (provided the software is well-written). Throw in a simple media port (SD, I guess) and interface port (USB), and you've got expandability and interconnectivity.
Idiot. You're forgetting the -intended application- of these devices.
These robotics are completely inadequate for their intended application of assisted mobility for those that can't get about on their own.
Tanks, however, are what made Germany's army able to completely walk over the other armies of Europe. While they might have been slow, big, etc. - whatever - compared to what was to come, they were a drastic improvement over the horse-drawn artillery of the competition. Furthermore, before Germany's tanks, there was no mobile armor. There was simply entrenched battlements and other such stationary armor. While relatively immoble, etc. they were still a hell of a lot better than the alternative and gave the Germans a significant advantage over their combatants until the Americans joined with their Shermans.
It wouldn't have been a stretch, because they wouldn't have had to do it.
As we all know, wookies live to be several hundred years old. Additionally, Han Solo saved Chewie for some yet-undisclosed soft-hearted reason. Could it be possible that Chewie and Han Solo's dad were smuggling mates at one point?
Voila! Instant opportunity to have Ford as a Solo -and- Chewie in a prequel. Have Ford play Han Solo's dad.
I'd have been really sweet if they'd done that for Episode III.:-/ (Isn't Chewie going to be in ep3, at least, though?)
No, that would suck. And I'm saying that as a head-strong, chauvenistic white male. Here's why.
I love the Indiana Jones films. I love the "history" twist, the Indiana Jones attitude (which I mention here), and just the general premise of being Indiana Jones myself (yes, even at 22, I have such fantasies. Call me a child, I dare you.) Indiana Jones is a character that many men idealize and idolize - the typical male hero.
Say what you want about there needing to be more "strong female characters" in movies. I'll say that trying to put women in typically male roles result in shitty movies (such as Tomb Raider) because they're so purely over the top and inplausable that it makes people groan in disbelief. Indiana Jones (Raiders) had a strong female lead: she was tough as nails, sassy, and could hold her own in most cases - except for when Indy rescued her. Granted, you might see that as a 'weakness' but Indy had weakness too - being sentimental and having a fear of snakes - so it definately wasn't a "males are superior" portrayal.
Now, if you want to have an Indiana Jones film with a strong female supporting character, I'm all fine with that. If you want strong female leads, look to shit like Xena, Tomb Raider, and other such improbable characters. Indiana Jones is about a male archeologist who has the role of "hero" fighting Nazis. I'd be fine with another supporting female such as a daughter, ala Marion, because she was a believeable character, and those are generally the best kind. When you recommended a "strong leading female" all I could think of was a) Tomb Raider and b) the "This is UNIX, I know this!" girl in Jurassic Park, and it scared me because those characters were poorly conceived.
Personally, I envision Indiana Jones 4 being a Grandfather-Father-Son type paragidm, with someone else playing the main action hero - as the son. Maybe make the son a research paeleontologist - or something like that - with a wild streak (similar to Indy's). Maybe he despises his father's and grandfather's work because it caused distance between them. Let's say he goes to a family reunion, and Dad and Grandpa try nad pull him into a search for some ancient lost artifact (let's say it's 1950 or so). There's still potential there for Nazis (or bloody commies! they're easy to demonize too!), and there's a chance to both "pass the torch" to a new Dr. Jones and to develop his character, as well as have a good story with both Indiana Jones and his son.
Now, I think the real challenge in this scenario would be finding a person to play the role that is both manly, witty/sarcastic, and charismic. It's hard to find someone that could 'act' that role without at least sharing the traits (Johny Depp or Orlando Bloom? No, I don't think so. While great actors, they're only human and not the type at all). Off hand, I can't think of anyone that's a known entity in Hollywood who would be good for the role, at all. Maybe they'll turn up a yet-unknown tallent, and we'll have an honest-to-goodness resurgence of acton films again. There does not seem to be too many manly male actors in Hollywood over the last couple years.
Well, it might be possible. Sean Connery was doing -some- stunts as recent as 5 years ago, and he was born 12 years before Ford.
However, having seen some of Ford's recent films, it doesn't seem to me like he's really cut out for the Indy role anymore, unfortunately.:( I'm sure they could have a stunt double, or even an animated double for most of the action stuff, but Ford never really was a very "physical" person. He just isn't built for it, and is awkward and gainly, unfortunately. As much as I'd like to think it's possible....
Still, on the other hand, my grandfather is 83, and probably more fit, strong, and spry as your average 35 year old. So it's possible.:)
On one hand, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. He's also Han Solo. You simply can't replace him in those roles, because everyone - everyone - associates the roles with the face, voice, and (most importantly) personality of Harrison Ford. Replacing Ford with someone else for the role of Indy just wouldn't work unless they tried really bloody hard to find some one with the same tongue-in-cheek sassy wit and lopsided grin - all without looking either too scholarly or two action-hero like. They'd need to find the "everyman intellectual" look, I think - as, it seems to me, Indy is the intellectual Ash.
On the other hand, I'd really like to see more Indiana Jones films, as I grew up on the John Williams soundtracks for Indy, the witty quips, and such. Indiana Jones was, to a large degree, what motivated my interest in both history and archeology. I've got countless photos of both me and my brother dressed up in brown fedoras, kackis, and the closest thing we could find to a leather vest, while holding whips. It'd just make my toes tingle. Though, can they do as well a job on Indy 4 (and any further sequels) as they did on Indy 1 and 3? Indy 2 kinda stunk. Would they truly Bond-ify Indiana Jones, or would they do it in a respectable manner that made it cool?
On still another hand, Indiana Jones relies on the Nazis to make him cool. Without Nazis or some massive empire of evil to fight that can be universally seen as evil, Indy has nothing. That doesn't make it easy to bring Indy to the current day - ala Bond. Maybe if they were to have a series of Chronicles, all placed in the WW2 era, it might work. But then there'd be a stronger need for Ford to play Dr. Jones.
On still another hand, if you look at the Bond films, none of the James Bonds were as good as Connery except for maybe Brosnan. I'd argue that Connery is simply too cool for Bond, and that Brosnan does, in my mind, fit the Bond prototype image better - at least for modern day. I imagine the case may have been different in the 1950's.:) It seems that, to some degree, Bond may have been effeminated over the years - or at least since the 1980's - at least in appearance.
Now, Harrison Ford's Indy was a "man's man". He drinks. He likes women. He doesn't like mindless women, and he likes them to remain quiet. He can take a beating while dishing one out. He's as sharp as a whip and can think inventively in times of need. He is, in a sense, an "idol", someone that almost every male can relate to on most levels, and still someone that can be looked up to. What I wonder is, in today's "progressive" society, would they bastardize the Indiana Jones character and take out all those character traits to make Indy more PC? They did so with Bond, to a large degree, and I do say the franchise suffered for it.
Anyway, I could go on all day like this... I think I'll watch some Indiana Jones tonight.:P
The operative word - which you used and ignored to take into consideration as important - here is "was". IE, past tense. IBM was a monopolistic power in the PC industry.
Furthermore, IBM didn't win the "PC battle" or whatever you're calling it. They lost. That's why we've got this x86 epidemic now: everyone makes them, and there's a lot of shit out there.
No, I don't doubt that IBM wouldn't mind getting monopolistic powers back, to some degree. But it simply isn't the case that they are monopolistic now, have been for the last 15 years, or even have the potential to be monopolistic again (due to Linux and other open initiatives both elsewhere and within IBM) in the same fashion that they were.
Your last paragraph brings to light your true motivation in this post. It's pretty fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain that IBM has no interoperability problems; their products are cutting edge and their innovations allow for nice, new things to be cheap a year or two down the line. Furthermore, IBM is embracing linux, the hallmark of interoperability in the software world. Get off the gack.
You are right that IBM won't die now because they learned their lessons. They were never in danger of dying anyway. You're, what, 12, 13? IBM is a massive, massive company. Their PC division is a very small fraction of their global operations.
Your school administration needs to get out of the 1980's. Seriously.
PCs have been called PCs as long as I can remember, which is probably around 1994 or so. Before that, what we call PCs now were called IBMs, because they were the only (large) game in town (aside from possibly Gateway, I think? But even they were still fledgelings compared to IBM...)
*sigh* That was back in the days when "industrial" looking things were seen as superior. Bigger, heavier, more robust = better. Now society is more focuses (for the most part) on smaller, more efficient, and compact, and we see those changes in our designs.
Granted, I'm sure it also had something to do with the manufacturing processes and technologies of the day.:)
IMO, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to simply take their IBM and Thinkpad brands and make PPC/Power based laptops. The cost to IBM would be significantly decreased (using all their own hardware designs - at least for the main parts), they'd keep a lot of their loyal fanbase (I'm sure many would switch to PPC/Linux/MacOS solely on the basis that IBM is behind it, so it must be good), and they'd increase their profit significantly. No more Intel or Microsoft tax.
It's a possibility, in my mind, as there's no explicit mention in that article that IBM is actually selling all of their "PC division" - it says that's the "expected" outcome. It's quite possible they'd keep the laptop division, as I suspect it's the most profitable and has the most potential for growth. Many, many people are migrating from using a desktop and a laptop, or just a desktop, to just using a laptop. I'm sure the trend will continue, and I can't imagine IBM wanting off that gravy train.
This might all be wishful thinking. I really hope IBM doesn't sell their Thinkpad division. In all likelyhood, it's too soon for IBM to completely shit in Microsoft's face like that. It might have really bad reprecusions - though I can't see what. It's possible they've got contracts with MS that prohibit such a move for X years, anyway, and thus why they're simply selling the division outright.
Slashdot Mirror
Computers are not a 'fairly new tool' in schools. The American education system is only about 150 years old (the first Department of Education being formed in 1867). The current US Dept. of Education began operating in 1980. Computers have been in schools (I'm guessing) since around 1985, maybe earlier.
That's 20 years - a long enough time for the majority of the teachers that were teaching then to become familiar with them in depth, as well as for the newer teachers to have had computers in schools when they were kids themselves.
If the length of time of a practice or tool being employed is an excuse for the lack of performance a specific tool or technique produces, then maybe we should reconsider the educational system. "Outcome-based education has only been commonly practiced for less than 10 years! We need to give it more time to make up for all the damage that the previous methods did!" some proponents of outcome-based education would cry. I'll tell you it's a scarecrow argument, and that the technique evidently isn't working if there aren't results.
No, I think the fact of the situation is that companies have massive advertising campaigns to get schools to buy into the "computers help kids learn" line of bullshit. Yes, they can. But they, in practice, don't - because kids would rather play games, chat, or what have you. That is why computers are in schools. There is no fundamental benefit of having computers in elementry schools, and hardly any for high schools, in my opinion. The focus should be on teaching kids how to read, write, perform mathematical problems, and most importantly, think.
No, our schools have devolved to the point of being not much more than an institutionalized daycare system with systemized distractions to keep the kids from "getting into trouble" (ie, school work), what with shitty and boring worksheets, do-nothing courses, and what have you. It might just be that schools with more computers are more distracted from education from others (ie, "let's spend all the money on the sports team and computers! fuck getting good teachers!"). It might also be that the computers are simply purchased and put in a lab somewhere for kids to use (or not use, because it's always locked - this is the situation in all 3 of the high schools I attended). No, I think computers in school are simply a symptom of the problem: administrators don't give a damn about the actual quality of education, just quantity - if at all. This bleeds off by trying to get the next big fix to keep as many kids in school as possible, and it snowballed into a mess we have now.
Side rant: outcome-based education is, in my opinion, one of the top 5 civil detriments to our society. It pushes those that would normally drop out and become productive (and often competent) laborers or creative business owners to stay in school, raising the cost of keeping someone there that doesn't want to be. It holds back those that want to learn more by not letting them progress at their own rate - because somehow it's not fair to the slow students. In essence, it's everything No Child Left Behind enforces.
HAHA. I wonder how the hell I managed to do that. Weird.
They've already done the "first person perspective" before. I believe it was first done in Gladiator, but it's been done in many films since then, where the camera follows the visual path of the protagonist.
Nothing new to see here. I suspect they'll just use that same technique and hold the camera more steady, with smooth(er) movements.
Ohhhhhh so "BFH = Bio Force Gun". I read that fucking article and I had no idea what the hell the Bio Force Gun was. I thought maybe it was something I missed in Doom 3, as I didn't pay close attention to the weapon names.
Damn that's dumb. I hope they don't call it a "Bio Force Gun", just call it "This is the BFH9000" or maybe just show a label somewhere on the barrel or something. What is the official id Software stance on the "BFH" anyway? Is it the "Big Fucking Gun" as tradition dictates, or do they not even really say?
Bio Force Gun, my ass, though. Regardless of the official title, I know nobody that knows it as anything other than the Big Fucking Gun.
I personally have 0 interest in seeing this film now. It's about as much Doom as the SWAT movie was Counter-Strike. It'd be interesting to see how severely they mutate it from the Doom plot/story, but that's about it. Not worth the time or effort.
I'm really quite underwhelmed. The "first person perspective" idea is horrible. The movie has nothing to do with Doom aside from being a "horror" genre title (and really, to be a horror genre title, the lead truly needs to be female. Everyone knows that). How dumb.
If a person likes a product, they will stereotypically only tell 4 of their friends on average.
However, if someone dislikes a product or has a bad experience, they will traditionally tell 20 or more people on average.
I suspect that this 'viral marketing' is needed to help compensate for some of the bad press that many companies get due to lack of quality service. You'd think that they might just spend the extra money and effort on making a product that doesn't suck, wouldn't you? But no, that's not immediate enough for most companies.
It sounds a lot like the marketing strategy used by Apple, to me. And gentoo, to a degree, but that's less of a centralized effort and more of a
I don't know how many times I've had some fool Mac fiend come up to me and my IBM Thinkpad x30 and say something asinine about his iBook or Powerbook being better. I don't notice them going up to the Dell or Gateway owners - I'm guessing they don't see those POS machines as threats to their trendyness.
At any rate, it usually boils down to them saying something along the lines of, "OS X has the power of UNIX" and then going on blathering about how Macs are fundamentally superior to "PCs". This goes on until I've had enough, and I commence to rip a new philosophical ass for him by refuting all the technical mistakes he'd made.
It only seems to piss them off that I run Linux, too. Bloody wankers.
(Note, I've got some Mac-using friends. They're not all zealots, just alike all gentoo folks aren't k1dd13s. I've also got some Gentoo Mac using friends. Please don't kill me.)
It might just be me, but personally, I've never met anyone involved with computers that's worth respecting (ie, not a blathering idiot) that's altruistic. Not in the least. They're almost invarialy condescending and self-important.
Note, don't confuse that with with being conceited. The fact is, they really are better, and thus can condescend to these people's levels.
Not really... In "The Temple of Doom" Nazis aren't central to the movie at all, and it's not as if that movie was terrible.
Actually... yes, yes it was. Between the childish irritation that was Short Round (not terribly similar to man's ideal to have an irritating kid at your heels), the bitchy whine that was Willie, and the stupidity that was the portrayal of Indian culture, it was horrible. That, and the plot was disjointed, the supporting characters couldn't act, there wasn't the "exciting" feel as the other two films had, and the main villian wasn't introduced until after an hour into the film.
He didn't like her, and he constantly tried to leave her behind through the first hour of the film. He hated her, but hey - you're in India and haven't seen a civilized woman for weeks, and you're surrounded by non-women. Whatcha gunna do?
Yes, I'm aware of this part of the story. However, it doesn't explicitly say one way or the other whether or not there was something special about the wookie in question. Surely, as an Imperial officer, he was fairly familiar with standard Imperial practice? It just doesn't make sense that he'd make it to officer from an enlisted man and not see this kind of behavior take place at all, or wait until becoming an officer to take action.
:P
So it is possible.
No. It's typical. For its genre.
Alien (and Aliens, and Alien 3) isn't an action film. It's a horror film. The horror film stereotype is to have an attractive woman run around trying to escape, sometimes fighting back, until she escapes. Somewhere along the way she loses her clothes. She's then haunted and traumatized by the whole experience until the day she dies. The only films I can think of with strong female leads are horror films (Alien Trilogy, Resident Evil, etc.)
That's the "horror" formula. Now, Alien: Resurrection I have not seen, but was it not more of an action film? I hear it sucked, and IMDB agrees (6/10).
I challenge you to find a single action adventure film that has a strong female hero (and protagonist) that isn't really, really bad. It's not that I don't think good films of the genre don't exist, it's just that I can't think of any I've seen, really, except the very rare exception.
The only exception to this rule I can think of is "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" with *drool* the amazingly sexy Milla Jovovich. (Don't confuse this with "Joan of Arc" which was made the same year, and sucked.) The film does a very good job of "de-sexualizing" her, and not drawing any attention to her feminine side, specifically.
However, it doesn't even fit into the category of action adventure (or even simply adventure - IMDB says "War Drama"). That, and throughout the film she's portrayed in a progressively psychotic, and thus negative, light.
There are a couple other examples I can think of with marginally strong female characters (but none of them are the lead, just supporting characters). Or literature in general, really. There's Lord of the Rings w/ Eowyn, Pirates of the Caribbean with Ms. Swann, The Matrix with Trinity, Star Wars - etc. etc. Still, I can't think of a single action, adventure, or action adventure with a female lead (and by association, a strong female lead). Maybe, maybe Terminator or The Bone Collector, but both those movies involve the female running away helplessly, getting caught, or some other scenario.
Needless to say, action adventure films with strong female leads are rare, and with very little variation, they Suck. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not.
That technology is available now in E-ink. The problem is, the company that makes it is only licensing it to fucking Sony, maker of the Librie, which isn't available in the US and has restrictive DRM. (The gumstix, which you may or may not have heard of, is what powers the librie, I believe. It's a gumstick-sized system, basically, using an Intel Xscale.)
Now, we need either a competing, similar technology to compete with the E-ink, or the release of the technology for other companies to work with.
The great hting about the concept of ebooks is, if it ever gets off the ground in a form that is universally accepted, easy to use, and inexpensive (in relation to books and other paper goods, both for the consumer and the producer), it will become almost universally accepted, I think. That's the spectre of technology, and this, I think, would be an ideal representation of such.
In essence, the "paperless society" would probably be much closer to realization. Now, and in the foreseeable future, non-color books will the the main medium for ereaders. Forseeably, all books, magazines, and newspapers will be a viable medium for the devices, and eventually we'll probably see the readers being used to read all manners of paper documents from work, coupons, bills, and what have you.
I'd say the biggest barrier is corporate greed. That greed manifests itself through unreasonable device and book inflation, but mainly through the employment of DRM.
I agree with you completely when you say that a good book (ie, one that's enjoyable ot read) definately are preferable in paper form so you can appreciate it more fully. Text books aren't good for enjoyment because they're written so poorly, and thus they're good for skimming, searching, and the like - ideal for ebooks. But....
Hah! "save on the initial purchase" indeed!
You can count on the prices going up, not down, my friend. The genious at the book companies will think, "Tey, we're giving the students the concenience of a single device with all their books and notes! They should pay for that!" and increase the book price by 20% for ebooks while grandfathering paper textbooks. Oh, and you won't own the books - you'll be leasing them, and your license will expire after a year. That way they won't have to continually make minor revisions to their text, and can use old texts ad nausium at no additional cost to them.
Have you never been to college? Or did you go to college a good many years ago? The practice of making a new edition has been common practice for at least the last 5 years, and likely more like 10 or 15 (or more).
Hrm. Seems a bit exhorbinantly priced, to me. Otherwise, I agree completely: apple could really get this off the ground,
In my mind, $80-100 is a good ballpark for such a device, with $150 being the possible ceiling. We're talking about a frickin' book reader here, not an MP3 player. Books take up a couple hundred K, a meg or two at best. You could fit an entire personal library's worth of books in a couple hundred megs of space. Not only that, but unlike music or movies, you generally don't need an accessory to play them (DVD player/TV/stereo, CD player/stereo). If people are going to be paying half what a paper book costs (or even 1/3rd - seems the reality is more like 85% or morethough), and you don't actually get a phyiscal copy, you're not going to be wanting to pay several hundred dollars to read it. There's no cost competition there.
The internals would be quite inexpensive in comparision to the iPod, too, in my mind. It need not hold any internal memory beyond that for the OS: a couple hundred kilobytes, at best. It could have internal memory - 32 Mb or so, I guess. The cost for that much memory would be trivial. It would likely be able to run for months worth of reading off of a couple AA batteries (provided it was using an e-ink screen, or similar/equivilant technology). The processor power would also be trivial, because it only takes a couple dozen megahertz at best to parse a document and display it to a screen (provided the software is well-written). Throw in a simple media port (SD, I guess) and interface port (USB), and you've got expandability and interconnectivity.
Idiot. You're forgetting the -intended application- of these devices.
These robotics are completely inadequate for their intended application of assisted mobility for those that can't get about on their own.
Tanks, however, are what made Germany's army able to completely walk over the other armies of Europe. While they might have been slow, big, etc. - whatever - compared to what was to come, they were a drastic improvement over the horse-drawn artillery of the competition. Furthermore, before Germany's tanks, there was no mobile armor. There was simply entrenched battlements and other such stationary armor. While relatively immoble, etc. they were still a hell of a lot better than the alternative and gave the Germans a significant advantage over their combatants until the Americans joined with their Shermans.
It wouldn't have been a stretch, because they wouldn't have had to do it.
:-/ (Isn't Chewie going to be in ep3, at least, though?)
As we all know, wookies live to be several hundred years old. Additionally, Han Solo saved Chewie for some yet-undisclosed soft-hearted reason. Could it be possible that Chewie and Han Solo's dad were smuggling mates at one point?
Voila! Instant opportunity to have Ford as a Solo -and- Chewie in a prequel. Have Ford play Han Solo's dad.
I'd have been really sweet if they'd done that for Episode III.
No, that would suck. And I'm saying that as a head-strong, chauvenistic white male. Here's why.
I love the Indiana Jones films. I love the "history" twist, the Indiana Jones attitude (which I mention here), and just the general premise of being Indiana Jones myself (yes, even at 22, I have such fantasies. Call me a child, I dare you.) Indiana Jones is a character that many men idealize and idolize - the typical male hero.
Say what you want about there needing to be more "strong female characters" in movies. I'll say that trying to put women in typically male roles result in shitty movies (such as Tomb Raider) because they're so purely over the top and inplausable that it makes people groan in disbelief. Indiana Jones (Raiders) had a strong female lead: she was tough as nails, sassy, and could hold her own in most cases - except for when Indy rescued her. Granted, you might see that as a 'weakness' but Indy had weakness too - being sentimental and having a fear of snakes - so it definately wasn't a "males are superior" portrayal.
Now, if you want to have an Indiana Jones film with a strong female supporting character, I'm all fine with that. If you want strong female leads, look to shit like Xena, Tomb Raider, and other such improbable characters. Indiana Jones is about a male archeologist who has the role of "hero" fighting Nazis. I'd be fine with another supporting female such as a daughter, ala Marion, because she was a believeable character, and those are generally the best kind. When you recommended a "strong leading female" all I could think of was a) Tomb Raider and b) the "This is UNIX, I know this!" girl in Jurassic Park, and it scared me because those characters were poorly conceived.
Personally, I envision Indiana Jones 4 being a Grandfather-Father-Son type paragidm, with someone else playing the main action hero - as the son. Maybe make the son a research paeleontologist - or something like that - with a wild streak (similar to Indy's). Maybe he despises his father's and grandfather's work because it caused distance between them. Let's say he goes to a family reunion, and Dad and Grandpa try nad pull him into a search for some ancient lost artifact (let's say it's 1950 or so). There's still potential there for Nazis (or bloody commies! they're easy to demonize too!), and there's a chance to both "pass the torch" to a new Dr. Jones and to develop his character, as well as have a good story with both Indiana Jones and his son.
Now, I think the real challenge in this scenario would be finding a person to play the role that is both manly, witty/sarcastic, and charismic. It's hard to find someone that could 'act' that role without at least sharing the traits (Johny Depp or Orlando Bloom? No, I don't think so. While great actors, they're only human and not the type at all). Off hand, I can't think of anyone that's a known entity in Hollywood who would be good for the role, at all. Maybe they'll turn up a yet-unknown tallent, and we'll have an honest-to-goodness resurgence of acton films again. There does not seem to be too many manly male actors in Hollywood over the last couple years.
Well, it might be possible. Sean Connery was doing -some- stunts as recent as 5 years ago, and he was born 12 years before Ford.
:( I'm sure they could have a stunt double, or even an animated double for most of the action stuff, but Ford never really was a very "physical" person. He just isn't built for it, and is awkward and gainly, unfortunately. As much as I'd like to think it's possible....
:)
However, having seen some of Ford's recent films, it doesn't seem to me like he's really cut out for the Indy role anymore, unfortunately.
Still, on the other hand, my grandfather is 83, and probably more fit, strong, and spry as your average 35 year old. So it's possible.
Man, I'm really on the fence on this one.
:) It seems that, to some degree, Bond may have been effeminated over the years - or at least since the 1980's - at least in appearance.
:P
On one hand, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. He's also Han Solo. You simply can't replace him in those roles, because everyone - everyone - associates the roles with the face, voice, and (most importantly) personality of Harrison Ford. Replacing Ford with someone else for the role of Indy just wouldn't work unless they tried really bloody hard to find some one with the same tongue-in-cheek sassy wit and lopsided grin - all without looking either too scholarly or two action-hero like. They'd need to find the "everyman intellectual" look, I think - as, it seems to me, Indy is the intellectual Ash.
On the other hand, I'd really like to see more Indiana Jones films, as I grew up on the John Williams soundtracks for Indy, the witty quips, and such. Indiana Jones was, to a large degree, what motivated my interest in both history and archeology. I've got countless photos of both me and my brother dressed up in brown fedoras, kackis, and the closest thing we could find to a leather vest, while holding whips. It'd just make my toes tingle. Though, can they do as well a job on Indy 4 (and any further sequels) as they did on Indy 1 and 3? Indy 2 kinda stunk. Would they truly Bond-ify Indiana Jones, or would they do it in a respectable manner that made it cool?
On still another hand, Indiana Jones relies on the Nazis to make him cool. Without Nazis or some massive empire of evil to fight that can be universally seen as evil, Indy has nothing. That doesn't make it easy to bring Indy to the current day - ala Bond. Maybe if they were to have a series of Chronicles, all placed in the WW2 era, it might work. But then there'd be a stronger need for Ford to play Dr. Jones.
On still another hand, if you look at the Bond films, none of the James Bonds were as good as Connery except for maybe Brosnan. I'd argue that Connery is simply too cool for Bond, and that Brosnan does, in my mind, fit the Bond prototype image better - at least for modern day. I imagine the case may have been different in the 1950's.
Now, Harrison Ford's Indy was a "man's man". He drinks. He likes women. He doesn't like mindless women, and he likes them to remain quiet. He can take a beating while dishing one out. He's as sharp as a whip and can think inventively in times of need. He is, in a sense, an "idol", someone that almost every male can relate to on most levels, and still someone that can be looked up to. What I wonder is, in today's "progressive" society, would they bastardize the Indiana Jones character and take out all those character traits to make Indy more PC? They did so with Bond, to a large degree, and I do say the franchise suffered for it.
Anyway, I could go on all day like this... I think I'll watch some Indiana Jones tonight.
Er, what? I didn't like your old sig? What was your old sig? :)
The operative word - which you used and ignored to take into consideration as important - here is "was". IE, past tense. IBM was a monopolistic power in the PC industry.
Furthermore, IBM didn't win the "PC battle" or whatever you're calling it. They lost. That's why we've got this x86 epidemic now: everyone makes them, and there's a lot of shit out there.
No, I don't doubt that IBM wouldn't mind getting monopolistic powers back, to some degree. But it simply isn't the case that they are monopolistic now, have been for the last 15 years, or even have the potential to be monopolistic again (due to Linux and other open initiatives both elsewhere and within IBM) in the same fashion that they were.
Your last paragraph brings to light your true motivation in this post. It's pretty fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain that IBM has no interoperability problems; their products are cutting edge and their innovations allow for nice, new things to be cheap a year or two down the line. Furthermore, IBM is embracing linux, the hallmark of interoperability in the software world. Get off the gack.
You are right that IBM won't die now because they learned their lessons. They were never in danger of dying anyway. You're, what, 12, 13? IBM is a massive, massive company. Their PC division is a very small fraction of their global operations.
Your school administration needs to get out of the 1980's. Seriously.
PCs have been called PCs as long as I can remember, which is probably around 1994 or so. Before that, what we call PCs now were called IBMs, because they were the only (large) game in town (aside from possibly Gateway, I think? But even they were still fledgelings compared to IBM...)
*sigh* That was back in the days when "industrial" looking things were seen as superior. Bigger, heavier, more robust = better. Now society is more focuses (for the most part) on smaller, more efficient, and compact, and we see those changes in our designs.
:)
Granted, I'm sure it also had something to do with the manufacturing processes and technologies of the day.
IMO, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to simply take their IBM and Thinkpad brands and make PPC/Power based laptops. The cost to IBM would be significantly decreased (using all their own hardware designs - at least for the main parts), they'd keep a lot of their loyal fanbase (I'm sure many would switch to PPC/Linux/MacOS solely on the basis that IBM is behind it, so it must be good), and they'd increase their profit significantly. No more Intel or Microsoft tax.
It's a possibility, in my mind, as there's no explicit mention in that article that IBM is actually selling all of their "PC division" - it says that's the "expected" outcome. It's quite possible they'd keep the laptop division, as I suspect it's the most profitable and has the most potential for growth. Many, many people are migrating from using a desktop and a laptop, or just a desktop, to just using a laptop. I'm sure the trend will continue, and I can't imagine IBM wanting off that gravy train.
This might all be wishful thinking. I really hope IBM doesn't sell their Thinkpad division. In all likelyhood, it's too soon for IBM to completely shit in Microsoft's face like that. It might have really bad reprecusions - though I can't see what. It's possible they've got contracts with MS that prohibit such a move for X years, anyway, and thus why they're simply selling the division outright.