Without going and digging up all the proof, my understanding is that 2/3 of Shuttle missons were military in nature. Pretty consistent with what you are saying. The PR neither was nor is just for Russians me-thinks.:)
I'm not in a hurry to disagree with you but I think you might not have this quite right.
Someone sold more consoles and more software....so plz define "pitifully few" and then come again with who wouldn't want to develop software for them?:)
(Software numbers are easy to find and current...hardware numbers are harder to come by...these are 2011 hardware numbers...but solid source.)
Xbox360
Consoles: 39 million
Games: 618 million
PS3
Consoles: 30 million
Games: 595 million
Wii
Consoles: 59 million
Games: 827 million
The elephant in the console-room is really the PS2.
PS2
Consoles: 155 million
Games: 1.5 Billion As of last year they were still selling something like 8 million PS2 games per year on is 12-year-old platform! The biggest selling game on the PS2 was in 2009 (San Andreas) for crying out loud - 4-years after the 360 and 3-years after the PS3. LOL!
More than anything else the PS2's continued success puts the lie to the "underpowered Wii" theory. Too much power just makes it too easy on the devs...too little is not a real limit, but a challenge. (Recall how much fun was had with "all the power" of the Atari 2600 after all. Go 4K ROM!)
"Core" gamer, "hardcore" gamer... I'm going to take my own stab at defining these lame-brained terms.
They have nothing to do with violent games, time spent playing, or anything else I've seen mentioned so far. What they are is euphemisms for "PC gamers". And this is true regardless of platform - PC=Xbox and Playstation is a bite off of that market. So what defines them? THEY ALWAYS WANT MORE OF THE SAME, but bigger, faster, and flashier. Minimal to no fucus on innovation or fun. We've been living their dream since the early 90's! (Anyone check out the cost of developing a new PC/XBox/PS game? Glitz doesn't add fun to a game, but at least it costs a lot!! How about the number of original titles in their Top 10? Hahahah.)
Wii was (and I'm hoping just a little here) the beginning of a revolution against that whole way of thinking. There is almost no reflection of "hardcore" in their game library. I and the rest of the people still enjoying their Wii's LIKE THAT.:)
What there is in the Wii equation, is a less ridiculously priced console, better prices on games, tons of classic console and arcade games and some decent new ones on Wii Online Store, and games that are establishing new dynamics in gaming. Personally, I still dig Wii Sports, as well as the Sports and Play sequells and Wii Fit+. Those and associated titles have alone more than justified the cost of the console (and two ROM drive repairs). The fact that I've gotten a great darts game for $5 as well as a dozen or more classic console and arcade games from the online store is just a huge bonus! I do watch Netflix on it, and the seperate Netflix-kids app is a really nice touch.
I will add that the 90/10 rule of computer games still applies, even on the Wii - only about 10% of the games on any platform are really all that good/worth playing. A Gamefly account (or generally renting vs buying) is the best thing you can do for a new console. I have many good games as a result of that.
As to the f'ing article, it sounds like a puff piece for whatever software they mentioned. People (within the industry and without) pretty soundly laughed at the prospect of the Wii. In spite of the success of the Wii, some people are still trying to laugh at Nintendo and their strategy. The magazine's failure to see potential of the Wii U isn't interesting for the same reason, IMO.
If Nintendo can maintain their price point against the other consoles and deliver the new feautres and experience as promised, I see no reason that Nintendo will do any worse than the trajectory they are on - selling more consoles and more games than their competitors. And with those new features, it seems there should be a lot of new potential as well.
The hard part for Nintendo (due to their being the pioneer) is getting a third party who can - after pouring money down the "hardcore" rathole - still afford to develop a new kind of game. Their catalog of super-fun games is growing, but it will take some time given the momentum third parties have in the style of games you find duplicated across all the other platforms.
Just looking at Nintendo and the Wii rationally, Nintendo couldn't have painted a cleared picture of what the Wii was supposed to be to consumers: A family and/or group oriented gaming console. It just couldn't have been clearer. They sold *a lot* of consoles on this basis! The games that the article cite as not doing well all made me say to myself (as a Wii owner, and near middle-aged gamer): Little wonder. They do not look interesting.
My opinion may have been different 25 years ago, but honestly playing Seven Cities of Gold, Rescue on Fractalus or MULE (some games from 25 years ago) on my old Atari 800 still sounds more appealing than a session of any of those games in the article. I think that's the problem with these games that don't do well: They aren't fun.
No, "harcore gamer" opinions on this don't count. That's a rarified market composed almost exclusively of teens (or younger). And going back to the beginning of my statement, it's not who Nintendo has been targeting *or selling* their console to.
Personally, I'm still pleased with Wii Sports (will be upgrading to Sports Resort when the budget allows), Play, Mario Kart Wii (the only Mario game I've ever really liked after Mario Bros), Zack & Wiki, Punchout!, among several others. I've also got a slew of WiWare games. I love "Cards" - best Euchre game I've seen on any computer platform; has several other card games as well. Donkey Kong, DK Jr, Spellunker and Load Runner are all great games to sit down and play for a few minutes.
I can't speak for Nintendo to say how this is working out for them, but from my angle as a customer, I'm pleased with the experience *and* that I only spent $200 vs $400+ on a new console. Go Nintendo!
Not to support a fallacious meme, but I think what they're driving at with the drugs = terrorism thing is all the poppies they grow in Afghanistan. So if you do a drug that's derivative of the poppy (like Tylenol III) you're officially an Enemy Combatant.
More power to them--as long as movies are actually generating millions of dollars of profit, I'm all for everyone involved getting their fair share.
Fair share? Was that a euphenism? IANAMP (Movie Producer), but I'm willing to bet that fairness never shows its face when the pie that is a movie budget gets carved up.:)
[...]I read a law thesis (was partly used as background for Mexico's new drug-permission law) were they stated that the "drug problem" was originally a health-issue which was converted to a criminal-issue by the government.
I'm going to assume the "government" being referred to above is the US Goverment.
The advent of drug laws as we know them was with the Temperance movement. Another good read is here. Rather than being written toward alcohol prohibition like the Temperance article, this is oriented toward Marijuana Prohibition. The second link is (IMO, anyway) very conservatively written for someone who's simply trying to find out the history of it.
To save the lazy out there some considerable reading, yes drugs were converted to a criminal issue with little good reason or due dilligence on behalf of the legislators. By comparison, Alcohol Prohibition made all kinds of sense...and we all can see that Alcohol Prohibition (which was the 18th Amendment, btw!) was repealed from law wholesale. What should that mean about Marijuana Prohibition?
The effects may have become somewhat varied (to be euphemistic) in the last 400 years, but the source of copyright, in essence, is the protection and encouragement of authors.
I can say on the opposite side of your point that Apple has announced blockbuster year after blockbuster year of increasing growth at the iTunes Music Store and now are the largest music seller in the land.
At the same time, they haven't started shutting down the music sections at Best Buy or Walmart.
I can't say your facts are incorrect, but the trends don't point that way generally.
-Matt
P.S. If the elimination of piracy is your goal, you're setting yourself up for failure. It goes with business. Apple has the correct perspective - you must simply outcompete the pirates.
They do experience piracy. Typically from nations where intellectual property rights are not well respected.
I'd say in the example of drug companies that's simply the cost of doing business. No amount of propaganda or lobbying for copyright legislation (domestic or foreign) is going to give one control over behavior of inDUHviduals in another country. (That's not the way successful legislation works...it is the way fascism works, but that's a different story.)
(BTW, who is Billy Tauzin???? Funny (as in "funny smelling", not as in "funny, ha ha") that he was on the radar of both industries we're talking about here.)
Look at it from another point of view: If what you're doing is "so revolutionary" then how is someone in Brazil knocking off your product in short order? Perhaps it wasn't so revolutinary after all? "Revolutionary"....perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means? (revolutionary != we spent a ton of money on it)
I think time to be realistic for drug and music companies: No matter how much you spend/waste on the drugs/artists you're developing, they won't necessarily be profitable or even worth it. Ditto for all the money you spend/waste promoting those drugs/artists.
U.S drug companies and commercial radio are both currently a laughing stock.
I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps the drug companies should focus more on cures and less on treatments than they do today?
To me, they're ultimately hung up on Gilette's business model. Buy the razor (aka pester your doctor for the perscription) and they sell you new blades for life (aka you get some relief from your symptom, but e.g. your eyes will bleed the whole time). Likewise, music companies perhaps should focus less on what they think we should like/listen to (Clear Channel is an abomination in the truest sense of the word, and only the tip of the industry's iceberg) and more on what we actually like and listen to?
I'd also argue that drug companies make way too much money (yes, it's possible). If that weren't true, they wouldn't have as many problems selling their drugs. (Let's all recall our supply and demand graphs from econ 101....lower prices = more people can afford your product = higher demand) They -- like the music industry -- create their own problems, then do their best to blame others for the results (i.e. lobby the government for specialtreatment).
On another front....
Print publishing is a more interesting example to me. If they stay with print media (books, paper) they don't have the piracy issue (not really) but as the world moves more and more to digital and print publishing tries to follow, they suffer more and more of the related problems....such as piracy. Thoughts? Personally I still like to pick up a book when I want to read -- it's a very, very good medium -- but I'm going to be called old-fashioned for that before too much longer.
[....]Movies with stupid premises that no one in their right mind would go see, wouldn't get funded enough to be made.
[....]
The problem this runs into is, you would need a population enlightened enough to go along with this mindset... not gonna happen.
Actually the problem you run into before you get to the population is the people who make those movies. Obviously they have the money to do it, regardless if they make money.
Further, thanks to modern Hollywood, putting butts in seats is far far from the only way these a**hats make money.
To quote the authority, Yoghurt: "Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs-the T-shirt, Spaceballs-the Coloring Book, Spaceballs-the Lunch box, Spaceballs-the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs-the Flame Thrower.
The US cell market is a complete wasteland as far as competition in handsets. It all revolves around what the knuckleheads at Verizon (,etc, ad nauseum) think you want and how they think you want to see it.....for the low low price of a 2 year contract.
That is the essence of why Nokia doesn't sell (many) phones here - it's the vendors. Customers have no real say in the matter...not really...and the range of Nokia phones typically offered is terrible. (Unless you're of the rarified minority who a) is aware of and b) can consider paying $x00 for an unlocked "mostly functional" Nxx[x], of course. Heh.)
To wit:
AT&T's offering: Nokia Surge, 6350, Mural
Verizon: 7705, 7205, 6205, 2605, 2705
Sprint: none at all
That is an utterly unremarkable (not to say flip phones are bad) lineup of Nokia phones. No E-series or N-series even showing....c'mon.
We've had Microsoft/Wintel hegemony for pushing 20 years now. (I was first denied purchase of a PC without Windows in 1991. OS/2 rulez!) Apple runs their own OS on the Intel side now for crying aloud.
That many Mac owners also have Windows should be surprising to no one....it's called "survival", and this far into the story I don't see how it's news. Many long-time Mac people have Windows around just to cope. Many, many frustrated Windows users simply keep their old systems around after making the switch. Duh.:-)
On another front, just to answer all the followups about what's cheaper: Apple's are cheaper that (e.g.) Dell's if you're comparing like systems. Dell offers lesser systems for less (junk IMO), and they even offer greater systems for even more (worth it only to a tiny segment of people). It is not accurate, nor has it been for years now, to say that Apple's are more expensive than Dell's.
Sounds like you're talking only about cell service then? The only sanctioned monopoly there is on RF spectrum. Not really what we're talking about all the way around though.
It is one of the few markets they "compete" in. Even that's a bizarre form of competition designed around lock-in though.
Both incorrect in substance as well as rating - it's not insightful. (Though no offense intended!)
While it's a near-certainty at this point that the world would be a better place without Verizon, they are a (sanctioned) monopoly in most markets where they operate. Also, many non-monopolies are operating well outside the "do what the customer wants, or else" version of Capitalism. They do more or less what they want, within the comfy dictates of the FCC.
This is why the poster has a problem with Verizon offering this "flavor" of IPv6.
Your argument would hold water (e.g.) if this were the old days of IPv4 Internet and you or I were complaining about getting a "full connection" from our local mom and pop ISP. In that scenario one could (in most towns) walk up the street and get the better connection you were looking for from another mom and pop.
(No concidence that in those days the likes of Verizon - or what would become them - was fully regulated, were much, much smaller. There was no room for the "Verizon flavor" of the Internet.)
True to an extent, but the Wright bros. pioneered air flight more or less on a shoestring. I'll grant you it'd have to be a bigger shoestring for space, but people have bigger shoes these days.:-) Seriouslly, I think that's a worthy example as they had so little resources (in modern terms) at their disposal to help them get flying and inventors today have so much at their disposal.
I wanted to agree with you, but I'm actually not so sure it's impossible for a "garage inventor" to get to space. Just really unlikely...like flying was before the Wrights.
That's a good bit of little-known trivia. Back in the day, automakers actually would pay to have cities and towns rip out all or part of their rail infrastructure. I leave it to Slashdot to guess why they'd spend money on that.:-)
-Matt
P.S. Looking at it with my other eye, that was a different breed of business from today's pan-handling corporation. You want their business in your town these days and you have to give them the money. (tax exemptions, etc)
Well, this is all linked to economy...
[....]
This is obvious that progress alone does not drive decisions. Money does.
Linked to economy, of course, but (among other things) this trend has directly followed the rise of the Corporation as a force within our economy as well.
Coincidental or not, it's surely true that many large corporations benefit from slowing down progress.
Check the Slashdot headlines for cable and telecom news. For posterity: They're currently trying to get the FCC to change the definition of Broadband so it includes sub-Broadband speeds. I can't explain that move specifically, but with respect to companies that actually create things (e.g. tech manufacturing, etc) the longer they can string out old technology the more -- so far as they're concerned -- it benefits their bottom line. (No new factories to build, no new employee costs to incur, etc.)
Get corporations to think past the next quarter (as some already do) and I bet we could see this whole trend evaporate.
-Matt
P.S. The whole Space Age thing was a Government funded project that almost all modern innovations flowed from. It was not a product of economy. The economy (businesses) was the benefactor. Still-inflated tax rates from WW II were the reason there was money for it.
P.P.S. We still have those still-inflated tax rates as we've never "stood down" from WW II. One could argue that all our "progress" in the last 50 years has gone out the barrell of a howitzer. (...up in a mushroom cloud?)
I know you specified San Fran. and I fully agree with you on the boundaries of stupidity, but still wanted to point out that Liberal-ness within California is an Urban Legend both created and perpetuated by Hollywood and intensely fed upon by the political establishment and media.
Walk away from the media's (esp. Hollywood's) portrayal and look into the reality and you find a few impossibly small pockets of Liberal thinking surrounded by miles and miles of the Conservative "mind". It's not too different from what you might find in the Midwestern states or elsewhere. The main difference is not makeup of philosphy, but scale -- California is huge. Yes, more Liberals, but also more Conservatives.
Forget not that despite the Liberalness and Gayness our minds associate with California, that state is also home to the Republican's god, Ronald Reagan and the Gay Marriage Ban. Also, California ripped out one of their previously most beloved (by the election numbers) Liberal Governors just so the Governator could take a shot.
Just a few (deep) examples, but I hope enough to make the point that any assumptions we hold about Liberalness in California are surely not well founded.
Slashdot Mirror
Without going and digging up all the proof, my understanding is that 2/3 of Shuttle missons were military in nature. Pretty consistent with what you are saying. The PR neither was nor is just for Russians me-thinks. :)
-Matt (re-remembering that Eisenhower quote.)
I'm not in a hurry to disagree with you but I think you might not have this quite right.
:)
Someone sold more consoles and more software....so plz define "pitifully few" and then come again with who wouldn't want to develop software for them?
(Software numbers are easy to find and current...hardware numbers are harder to come by...these are 2011 hardware numbers...but solid source.)
Xbox360
Consoles: 39 million
Games: 618 million
PS3
Consoles: 30 million
Games: 595 million
Wii
Consoles: 59 million
Games: 827 million
The elephant in the console-room is really the PS2.
PS2
Consoles: 155 million
Games: 1.5 Billion As of last year they were still selling something like 8 million PS2 games per year on is 12-year-old platform! The biggest selling game on the PS2 was in 2009 (San Andreas) for crying out loud - 4-years after the 360 and 3-years after the PS3. LOL!
More than anything else the PS2's continued success puts the lie to the "underpowered Wii" theory. Too much power just makes it too easy on the devs...too little is not a real limit, but a challenge. (Recall how much fun was had with "all the power" of the Atari 2600 after all. Go 4K ROM!)
"Core" gamer, "hardcore" gamer... I'm going to take my own stab at defining these lame-brained terms.
:)
They have nothing to do with violent games, time spent playing, or anything else I've seen mentioned so far. What they are is euphemisms for "PC gamers". And this is true regardless of platform - PC=Xbox and Playstation is a bite off of that market. So what defines them? THEY ALWAYS WANT MORE OF THE SAME, but bigger, faster, and flashier. Minimal to no fucus on innovation or fun. We've been living their dream since the early 90's! (Anyone check out the cost of developing a new PC/XBox/PS game? Glitz doesn't add fun to a game, but at least it costs a lot!! How about the number of original titles in their Top 10? Hahahah.)
Wii was (and I'm hoping just a little here) the beginning of a revolution against that whole way of thinking. There is almost no reflection of "hardcore" in their game library. I and the rest of the people still enjoying their Wii's LIKE THAT.
What there is in the Wii equation, is a less ridiculously priced console, better prices on games, tons of classic console and arcade games and some decent new ones on Wii Online Store, and games that are establishing new dynamics in gaming. Personally, I still dig Wii Sports, as well as the Sports and Play sequells and Wii Fit+. Those and associated titles have alone more than justified the cost of the console (and two ROM drive repairs). The fact that I've gotten a great darts game for $5 as well as a dozen or more classic console and arcade games from the online store is just a huge bonus! I do watch Netflix on it, and the seperate Netflix-kids app is a really nice touch.
I will add that the 90/10 rule of computer games still applies, even on the Wii - only about 10% of the games on any platform are really all that good/worth playing. A Gamefly account (or generally renting vs buying) is the best thing you can do for a new console. I have many good games as a result of that.
As to the f'ing article, it sounds like a puff piece for whatever software they mentioned. People (within the industry and without) pretty soundly laughed at the prospect of the Wii. In spite of the success of the Wii, some people are still trying to laugh at Nintendo and their strategy. The magazine's failure to see potential of the Wii U isn't interesting for the same reason, IMO.
If Nintendo can maintain their price point against the other consoles and deliver the new feautres and experience as promised, I see no reason that Nintendo will do any worse than the trajectory they are on - selling more consoles and more games than their competitors. And with those new features, it seems there should be a lot of new potential as well.
The hard part for Nintendo (due to their being the pioneer) is getting a third party who can - after pouring money down the "hardcore" rathole - still afford to develop a new kind of game. Their catalog of super-fun games is growing, but it will take some time given the momentum third parties have in the style of games you find duplicated across all the other platforms.
-Matt
Just looking at Nintendo and the Wii rationally, Nintendo couldn't have painted a cleared picture of what the Wii was supposed to be to consumers: A family and/or group oriented gaming console. It just couldn't have been clearer. They sold *a lot* of consoles on this basis! The games that the article cite as not doing well all made me say to myself (as a Wii owner, and near middle-aged gamer): Little wonder. They do not look interesting.
My opinion may have been different 25 years ago, but honestly playing Seven Cities of Gold, Rescue on Fractalus or MULE (some games from 25 years ago) on my old Atari 800 still sounds more appealing than a session of any of those games in the article. I think that's the problem with these games that don't do well: They aren't fun.
No, "harcore gamer" opinions on this don't count. That's a rarified market composed almost exclusively of teens (or younger). And going back to the beginning of my statement, it's not who Nintendo has been targeting *or selling* their console to.
Personally, I'm still pleased with Wii Sports (will be upgrading to Sports Resort when the budget allows), Play, Mario Kart Wii (the only Mario game I've ever really liked after Mario Bros), Zack & Wiki, Punchout!, among several others. I've also got a slew of WiWare games. I love "Cards" - best Euchre game I've seen on any computer platform; has several other card games as well. Donkey Kong, DK Jr, Spellunker and Load Runner are all great games to sit down and play for a few minutes.
I can't speak for Nintendo to say how this is working out for them, but from my angle as a customer, I'm pleased with the experience *and* that I only spent $200 vs $400+ on a new console. Go Nintendo!
-Matt
-Matt
More power to them--as long as movies are actually generating millions of dollars of profit, I'm all for everyone involved getting their fair share.
Fair share? Was that a euphenism? IANAMP (Movie Producer), but I'm willing to bet that fairness never shows its face when the pie that is a movie budget gets carved up. :)
-Matt
Performing a work live and producing a copy to sell are two different things, even under the current law.
[...]I read a law thesis (was partly used as background for Mexico's new drug-permission law) were they stated that the "drug problem" was originally a health-issue which was converted to a criminal-issue by the government.
I'm going to assume the "government" being referred to above is the US Goverment.
The advent of drug laws as we know them was with the Temperance movement. Another good read is here. Rather than being written toward alcohol prohibition like the Temperance article, this is oriented toward Marijuana Prohibition. The second link is (IMO, anyway) very conservatively written for someone who's simply trying to find out the history of it.
To save the lazy out there some considerable reading, yes drugs were converted to a criminal issue with little good reason or due dilligence on behalf of the legislators. By comparison, Alcohol Prohibition made all kinds of sense...and we all can see that Alcohol Prohibition (which was the 18th Amendment, btw!) was repealed from law wholesale. What should that mean about Marijuana Prohibition?
-Matt
I hate to use the same link twice in the same thread, but please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
The effects may have become somewhat varied (to be euphemistic) in the last 400 years, but the source of copyright, in essence, is the protection and encouragement of authors.
-Matt
I'll be darned if I can recall the source now, but copyright was just as much in effect in the days of kings and scribes as it is today.
Wikipedia has it back to 1662.
-Matt
Numbers please.
I can say on the opposite side of your point that Apple has announced blockbuster year after blockbuster year of increasing growth at the iTunes Music Store and now are the largest music seller in the land.
At the same time, they haven't started shutting down the music sections at Best Buy or Walmart.
I can't say your facts are incorrect, but the trends don't point that way generally.
-Matt
P.S. If the elimination of piracy is your goal, you're setting yourself up for failure. It goes with business. Apple has the correct perspective - you must simply outcompete the pirates.
And, changing copyright law to continually rob the public from what rightfully belongs to us.
Are you saying that copyright law is another form of PIRACY???
If so, I think I may be inclined to agree.
-Matt
They do experience piracy. Typically from nations where intellectual property rights are not well respected.
I'd say in the example of drug companies that's simply the cost of doing business. No amount of propaganda or lobbying for copyright legislation (domestic or foreign) is going to give one control over behavior of inDUHviduals in another country. (That's not the way successful legislation works...it is the way fascism works, but that's a different story.)
(BTW, who is Billy Tauzin???? Funny (as in "funny smelling", not as in "funny, ha ha") that he was on the radar of both industries we're talking about here.)
Look at it from another point of view: If what you're doing is "so revolutionary" then how is someone in Brazil knocking off your product in short order? Perhaps it wasn't so revolutinary after all? "Revolutionary"....perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means? (revolutionary != we spent a ton of money on it)
I think time to be realistic for drug and music companies: No matter how much you spend/waste on the drugs/artists you're developing, they won't necessarily be profitable or even worth it. Ditto for all the money you spend/waste promoting those drugs/artists.
U.S drug companies and commercial radio are both currently a laughing stock.
I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps the drug companies should focus more on cures and less on treatments than they do today?
To me, they're ultimately hung up on Gilette's business model. Buy the razor (aka pester your doctor for the perscription) and they sell you new blades for life (aka you get some relief from your symptom, but e.g. your eyes will bleed the whole time). Likewise, music companies perhaps should focus less on what they think we should like/listen to (Clear Channel is an abomination in the truest sense of the word, and only the tip of the industry's iceberg) and more on what we actually like and listen to?
I'd also argue that drug companies make way too much money (yes, it's possible). If that weren't true, they wouldn't have as many problems selling their drugs. (Let's all recall our supply and demand graphs from econ 101....lower prices = more people can afford your product = higher demand) They -- like the music industry -- create their own problems, then do their best to blame others for the results (i.e. lobby the government for special treatment).
On another front....
Print publishing is a more interesting example to me. If they stay with print media (books, paper) they don't have the piracy issue (not really) but as the world moves more and more to digital and print publishing tries to follow, they suffer more and more of the related problems....such as piracy. Thoughts? Personally I still like to pick up a book when I want to read -- it's a very, very good medium -- but I'm going to be called old-fashioned for that before too much longer.
-Matt
[....]Movies with stupid premises that no one in their right mind would go see, wouldn't get funded enough to be made. [....]
The problem this runs into is, you would need a population enlightened enough to go along with this mindset... not gonna happen.
Actually the problem you run into before you get to the population is the people who make those movies. Obviously they have the money to do it, regardless if they make money.
Further, thanks to modern Hollywood, putting butts in seats is far far from the only way these a**hats make money.
To quote the authority, Yoghurt: "Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs-the T-shirt, Spaceballs-the Coloring Book, Spaceballs-the Lunch box, Spaceballs-the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs-the Flame Thrower.
[turns it on]"
-Matt
The US cell market is a complete wasteland as far as competition in handsets. It all revolves around what the knuckleheads at Verizon (,etc, ad nauseum) think you want and how they think you want to see it.....for the low low price of a 2 year contract.
That is the essence of why Nokia doesn't sell (many) phones here - it's the vendors. Customers have no real say in the matter...not really...and the range of Nokia phones typically offered is terrible. (Unless you're of the rarified minority who a) is aware of and b) can consider paying $x00 for an unlocked "mostly functional" Nxx[x], of course. Heh.)
To wit:
AT&T's offering: Nokia Surge, 6350, Mural
Verizon: 7705, 7205, 6205, 2605, 2705
Sprint: none at all
That is an utterly unremarkable (not to say flip phones are bad) lineup of Nokia phones. No E-series or N-series even showing....c'mon.
-Matt
We've had Microsoft/Wintel hegemony for pushing 20 years now. (I was first denied purchase of a PC without Windows in 1991. OS/2 rulez!) Apple runs their own OS on the Intel side now for crying aloud.
That many Mac owners also have Windows should be surprising to no one....it's called "survival", and this far into the story I don't see how it's news. Many long-time Mac people have Windows around just to cope. Many, many frustrated Windows users simply keep their old systems around after making the switch. Duh. :-)
On another front, just to answer all the followups about what's cheaper: Apple's are cheaper that (e.g.) Dell's if you're comparing like systems. Dell offers lesser systems for less (junk IMO), and they even offer greater systems for even more (worth it only to a tiny segment of people). It is not accurate, nor has it been for years now, to say that Apple's are more expensive than Dell's.
-Matt
Sounds like you're talking only about cell service then? The only sanctioned monopoly there is on RF spectrum. Not really what we're talking about all the way around though.
It is one of the few markets they "compete" in. Even that's a bizarre form of competition designed around lock-in though.
Captain Obvious:
Both incorrect in substance as well as rating - it's not insightful. (Though no offense intended!)
While it's a near-certainty at this point that the world would be a better place without Verizon, they are a (sanctioned) monopoly in most markets where they operate. Also, many non-monopolies are operating well outside the "do what the customer wants, or else" version of Capitalism. They do more or less what they want, within the comfy dictates of the FCC.
This is why the poster has a problem with Verizon offering this "flavor" of IPv6.
Your argument would hold water (e.g.) if this were the old days of IPv4 Internet and you or I were complaining about getting a "full connection" from our local mom and pop ISP. In that scenario one could (in most towns) walk up the street and get the better connection you were looking for from another mom and pop.
(No concidence that in those days the likes of Verizon - or what would become them - was fully regulated, were much, much smaller. There was no room for the "Verizon flavor" of the Internet.)
-Matt
Exactly!
For the first time in decades, popular opinion is on the industry's side.
If this were true, would we need a news article telling us about it? Noo.
-Matt
Windows apps (that run) run in WINE (aka CrossOver) natively.
True to an extent, but the Wright bros. pioneered air flight more or less on a shoestring. I'll grant you it'd have to be a bigger shoestring for space, but people have bigger shoes these days. :-) Seriouslly, I think that's a worthy example as they had so little resources (in modern terms) at their disposal to help them get flying and inventors today have so much at their disposal.
I wanted to agree with you, but I'm actually not so sure it's impossible for a "garage inventor" to get to space. Just really unlikely...like flying was before the Wrights.
-Matt
That's a good bit of little-known trivia. Back in the day, automakers actually would pay to have cities and towns rip out all or part of their rail infrastructure. I leave it to Slashdot to guess why they'd spend money on that. :-)
-Matt
P.S. Looking at it with my other eye, that was a different breed of business from today's pan-handling corporation. You want their business in your town these days and you have to give them the money. (tax exemptions, etc)
Well, this is all linked to economy... [....]
This is obvious that progress alone does not drive decisions. Money does.
Linked to economy, of course, but (among other things) this trend has directly followed the rise of the Corporation as a force within our economy as well.
Coincidental or not, it's surely true that many large corporations benefit from slowing down progress.
Check the Slashdot headlines for cable and telecom news. For posterity: They're currently trying to get the FCC to change the definition of Broadband so it includes sub-Broadband speeds. I can't explain that move specifically, but with respect to companies that actually create things (e.g. tech manufacturing, etc) the longer they can string out old technology the more -- so far as they're concerned -- it benefits their bottom line. (No new factories to build, no new employee costs to incur, etc.)
Get corporations to think past the next quarter (as some already do) and I bet we could see this whole trend evaporate.
-Matt
P.S. The whole Space Age thing was a Government funded project that almost all modern innovations flowed from. It was not a product of economy. The economy (businesses) was the benefactor. Still-inflated tax rates from WW II were the reason there was money for it.
P.P.S. We still have those still-inflated tax rates as we've never "stood down" from WW II. One could argue that all our "progress" in the last 50 years has gone out the barrell of a howitzer. (...up in a mushroom cloud?)
I know you specified San Fran. and I fully agree with you on the boundaries of stupidity, but still wanted to point out that Liberal-ness within California is an Urban Legend both created and perpetuated by Hollywood and intensely fed upon by the political establishment and media.
Walk away from the media's (esp. Hollywood's) portrayal and look into the reality and you find a few impossibly small pockets of Liberal thinking surrounded by miles and miles of the Conservative "mind". It's not too different from what you might find in the Midwestern states or elsewhere. The main difference is not makeup of philosphy, but scale -- California is huge. Yes, more Liberals, but also more Conservatives.
Forget not that despite the Liberalness and Gayness our minds associate with California, that state is also home to the Republican's god, Ronald Reagan and the Gay Marriage Ban. Also, California ripped out one of their previously most beloved (by the election numbers) Liberal Governors just so the Governator could take a shot.
Just a few (deep) examples, but I hope enough to make the point that any assumptions we hold about Liberalness in California are surely not well founded.
-Matt