My guess is that IDG and the Expo team were getting more press pass requests than they expected, and decided to look into the matter. The first thing they probably did was ask people like Ms. Welch for input as to who could be considered a true journalist and who was just a fanboy looking for a free ride. Apple then happily provided their "shit list", and IDG implemented it without wasting another thought on it (bad IDG!).
The case of who started the ball rolling is irrelevant; the fact is that the organisers are trying to keep their press passes from being devalued. There are legitimate reasons to try and check credentials, so that "real journalists" don't get lumped in together with "bloggers and fanzines".
Well, it all depends on where you stand. Apple has been lowering the price for their equimpment, and a lot of people are (grudgingly) admitting that they are cheaper than a lot of *comparably outfitted* machines. So yes, Apple isn't in the bargain basement, but goes for the "more bang for your buck". (IMO, they have to, especially since Motorola fell behind Moore's Law.)
Apple does pack a lot of stuff in that you could live without at home (such as fast Ethernet cards *and* 56k modems), and is notoriously unfriendly to the "roll your own" crowd. Then again, the hardware is one of the most important aspects of the Mac, as it was with the Amiga. Without this tight integration of hardware and the OS, the Apple woudn't have survived.
And that is another reason why I think this bird won't fly: the Amiga was actually a miracle in *hardware*; the OS was what let it shine.
Revolutionary as the Amiga systems were, I don't think that this new offering has that much of a chance.
Apple's current high-quality/low-price hardware strategy will undercut the demand for this thing before it gets off of the ground. Add to that Apple's new NeXT-based OS, and the chances look even dimmer. As for native apps, I think Be's demise should show where this leads.
The Amiga was killed by several factors. It was a giant leap forward, but after that it languished. Its image was tarnished by the fact that is was available from K-Mart and other discount stores. There were so many games available that the public didn't consider it a "real" business machine.
I am also a little surprised that you consider the Macintosh OS so lowly. Compared to the other GUI's of the time, it was polished and well thought-out. True, multi-tasking didn't come until much later in the game, but it started the DTP revolution.
I was quite happy with the keyboard provided with my Mac Classic II. It felt right, and only had the keys I really needed. The Mac was designed for heavy mouse usage, and the keyboard reflected that attitude.
I don't really want the whole row of function keys on my home computer (at work it's different: I store all of my macros up there). Desk space is a minimum, and a reduced-size keyboard and a Wacom Graphire are perfect for my cluttered home desk.
I never had a chance to try out those "chording" keyboard replacements, so I can't comment on those. Pity. They seemed like they could have been small, comfortable and fast - once you passed the learning curve.
According to what I saw, MS has put Windows 2000 up for EAL4 evaluation, with some funky exeptions. Apple is going for EAL3 evaluation first and probably did a lot of internal tests first.
Win2000 has been in the lab for a LONG time now, and still isn't certified. Is Microsoft playing the "submitted for" advertising game, hoping that it can run out the clock yet again?
I think Apple would like to keep the version vumber more or less in the background and just call it Mac OS X. Whether the version number changes before or after the decimal (or even which decimal place) is more marketing than any written law.
Mac OS X will probably keep all of its version numbers as 10.n.n as long as possible. Only when a MAJOR overhaul happens will they move to calling it Mac OS XI.
I think it could also be cluelessness mixed in with a large dosage of arrogance. Until now, the attitude Microsoft keeps on trying to project is: "Yeah, Linux is fun, but when you're ready to do REAL business work, we're right over here!"
Although I wouldn't put it past MS to put some dupes into their booth to draw fire, they could also be planning on spinning this in a later press release, talking about how many visitors they had (not mentioning that they were almost all hecklers!).
The sad thing is that most record companies and movie companies are just arms of one bigger company- see Sony, Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom, and so on. Is this a case of the home video division being determined not to repeat the mistakes of their music division brethren? Or are they playing "drug dealer", trying to get us hooked on their DVD crack?
I think it's just a case of inertia on the part of the recording execs. They can't see how lowering prices could boost sales. Or rather they can, and realise it'd help the little guys more. They don't care about the music, the musicians, or even the "Industry". They just care about their empires.
(BTW: when you see a really cheap CD amongst a lot of high-priced crap, don't you instictively think that it must be even crappier? It takes effort to overcome their conditioning.)
Actually, I think a "reboot" version might also be worthwhile, restarting with the William Hartnell Doctor, and setting it in the early 1960's. This time around, though, they should go for a closed meta-storyline, and work out the relationships between the characters and villians beforehand.
There were plenty of wonderful stories, but there were also some clunkers. If the BBC produces this itself, it has a better chance of surviving.
This wasn't a test of all-around server tastiness, but of the area Xinet is most interested in- publishing. That means pulling files down local with Photoshop, collecting for a print job (whether QuarkXPress or InDesign), opening the darn EPS file straight from The Server because the Boss doesn't want you saving it on the local drive, and so on. It's the client that needs the AltiVec optimisation; the server just needs to "shovel" the files here and there.
Xinet needs to know where its software will be best used, so that they can plan accordingly. Other 'benchmarks' aren't interesting to them.
Y'see, until now, WinNT box sellers were trying to muscle into the publishing server market, extolling their rack-mountability and cross-platform compatability, and Linux box manufacturers weren't that far behind. You could say that Apple's xServe is going to win back those shops first, then go for the mixed-OS networks, securing the flanks before launching the main offensive into Serverland...
Actually, a lot of Microsoft's advertising belies a subtle sabotage by their PR types. Remember the Stones song whose refrain was "You make a grown man cry"? How about the Office ads with a requiem for a soundtrack? Or the way the Windows logo looks like it's going down/to crash?
I definitely think that it's a subtle jab at clueless leaders, that the marketing types are playing jokes on the computer geeks that supposedly run the place.
They were probably having trouble keeping a straight face as they suggested Freon. "Oh yeah, it'll connotate 'Free' and 'on'! (snicker) Um, I gotta go to another meeting! (burst of laughter as the door closes)"
"Brazil by far the best team in the world at the moment will have to qualify for the next world cup in Germany 2006 where as runners-up Germany get a free ticket as hosts, oh the irony!"
It was at the request of a lot of the members, as the qualifying round lets a coach iron out a lot of the problems in his team, keep cohesion, and so on.
The automatic qualification for France was (according to conventional wisdom) one of the leading reasons why they fared so poorly. The stars were too busy playing for their contract clubs, doing merchandising tours, and never really gelled into a team.
That said, I enjoyed the 2002 World Cup. It's one of the few pro games left that hasn't changed its rules to pander to the TV ad structure.
Re:Not an Al Quaeda tactic
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Right on. The whole problem with cyber-attacks is that they're not sexy--I mean, thrilling--enough to the average glory hound. Even the Anthrax scare is too low-key for Al Qaida.
Terrorists want to grab the front page, the lead story, and kill people so that other people will listen to them. They're in it for the adrenalin rush, the feeling of power. Computers are too impersonal to hold their attention for very long.
If anybody's going to start cyberterrorism, it won't be for political purposes. It'll be for extortion, "protection money" and industrial espionage. Cybermafiosi are *much* more likely than Cyberterrorists.
"Hey, I got an idea for a quick million or two as pocket change. Let's sign on with Microsoft on this Palladium scheme, hit them for consulting fees, and them tell them it can't be done after they pay!" "What about AMD?" "We can fool them. 'Smatter of fact, I bet they're already planning the same thing."
The sky may not be falling, but it also fits in with vilefying emulators and their ilk, as Microsoft really *is* running scared. Now that Intel and IBM are working so closely with Linux, and Apple maneuvering itself to becoming the developer's platform of choice, Microsoft sees its comfortable monopoly under attack.
Microsoft is paranoid about becoming irrelevant, about anybody doing to them what they did to IBM. They aren't truly innovative, and they know it. It even shows with this re-hashing of Intel's unique identifier plan as a way to lock out the competition. The wierd thing is, this comes just as experts (even from Microsoft itself!) are debunking technological security schemes!
Another thing I noticed is that this whole "Palladium" is still speculative vaporware. It's as if Microsoft wants *us* to define it with our hopes and fears, or as if they heard of another meme and wanted to claim that they thought of it first.
So maybe the sky *is* falling...from Microsoft's point of view.
Buddy, your tinfoil-hat rantings about the whole Iran-Contra scandal and Nixon's saintliness seem to suggest that you've been in the GOP's Orbital Mind Control Laser Test Range a little too long.
Seriously, you seem to miss the gist of Watergate, namely that it was a huge shakeup of political faith, where Nixon and his associates were suddenly viewed as corrupt, paranoid and willing to commit major crimes to stay in power. It was the first such scarring of the American psyche, and the reason why all other scandals carry "-gate" as a pseudo-clever suffix.
Iran-Contra is remembered not only because it was undeniably illegal (don't forget that Ollie North was convicted), but because of how it became a lose-lose situation for Reagan in the long run: either he wasn't aware of what his aides were planning, or he knowingly broke the law. His presidency is now often regarded as "asleep at the wheel" by pundits because of this.
Clinton's scandals are notable because they dealt with relatively trivial matters being used as political weapons. The bitterness of the attackers and the defenders is said to have eroded public trust in both parties (and played a direct role in the last presidential election). It is also noted for eroding the world's view of the US, for who else but the prudish Americans would make a national crisis out of a person's sex life?
I suppose I've given you more of an answer than you deserve, but you need to realise that the rest of this planet doesn't quite think like you do. Watergate was a grand drama, to which the Clinton scandals are merely petty soap opera.
It's easy to jump on the mayor for being a censor tyrant for this action, and some conspiracy buffs will undoubtedly claim the fire was set by the authorities on purpose. I think the real cause is the cavalier lack of any safety measures. Most of these cafés were illegal most likely because they didn't conform to any sort of building codes or grease the right palms.
After the excitement dies back down, several of these cafés will be up and running again, most likely under new aliases and at new locations.
I doubt that this will have more than a temporary effect. Even on fire safety.
"Complete his training"? I think the way he's going, it will require courses in cackling, dramatic lighting and keeping your white persian from coughing up hairballs on the Console of Doom.
This would fit in with their "it's all better on a Mac" strategy, along with the XServe lineup. They'll keep the non-Mac versions alive as a way of enticing professionals to the dark side, but making damn well sure that these programs run better on Apple hardware.
It is interesting to see Apple follow a "convert or be eaten" strategy. We expect this from Microsoft, but from Apple? Heck, at one time they were considering selling FileMaker!
All this high-end buying binges are nice and all, but I hope Apple puts more effort into "average joe" application, like giving their programmers time to work on Open Office (or bring out a professional version of Apple Works).
What I want is that I can take my data with me, and not have to broadcast it through the airwaves. I'd prefer a standardised, hot-swappable memory cartridge format. I want a way to physically secure sensitive data like my checkbook balance and other bank info. I want to be able to pop my info in a slew of devices, from a small cell phone (for quick payments) to a laptop (for the extra heavy duty stuff). If I have to access the network to get my info, then I'm just needlessly vulnerable.
On a related note...
Expecting one unified information format is not realistic, but I do expect manufacturers to settle on one or two standards for peripheral interfaces. When I buy a keyboard or a new memory card for my PDA, I shoudn't have to worry too much about what model PDA I have. (OK, this is only applicable to a degree, analogous to cars all using 24v for electronics and standardised "cigarette lighter" interfaces, but individual sizes for spark plugs and windshield wipers.)
Another piece of info that this isn't all that serious is that he refers to Han being trained in an Imperial academy. Since that information isn't in the movies (*I* haven't seen it there), he must have gotten it from one of the novelisations. Thus, he's drawing from the sources that he specifically bars!
I also like how he describes Piett's rise to power, yet neglects how the predecessor was removed from office. Or how Vader offhandedly killed a competent captain for getting outwitted by Solo.
The claim of loyalty is also just as far-fetched. Member worlds may have royalty, but this had no bearing on senatorial power. As far as we can tell, each world was allowed to choose its senators in a way its rulers saw fit.
Lastly, I wonder how he gets the idea that the Emperor is benevolent if he rules by fear? I don't recall the original trilogy ever showing what life was like in the heart of the empire; the stories all were set on peripheral worlds - "in the boonies", so to speak.
It's not bad for a "Ha Ha Made You Think" article. Also good for seeing through the arguments of other power advocates.
Expectations rise and fall in tides. You ought to know that by now. When the first Star Wars came out in '77, what good fantasy action flicks were there? Planet of the Apes had been run into the ground, and no studio was willing to spend the money needed then to generate the F/X needed for suspension of disbelief.
Star Wars got into production because it was an hommage on the old serials, and George Lucas was typecast as good for "good old days" stuff thanks to American Graffiti. I don't think anybody expected to touch a nerve like it did. Now it (ironically) has it's own wave of nostalgia to overcome, like any "first love".
You want movies made for the sake of the art? Go to Europe. Deal with government grants instead of stockholders. If it succeeds, Hollywood will buy the rights and remake it. But don't expect Hollywood to take the first risk.
"Jobs cited example of multiple Macs working at home sharing MP3 files with iTunes between multiple computers. Demonstrated example of MP3 files streaming over AirPort."
Holy Heck! Is Jobs deliberately trying to piss off the recording industry?
(FX: Dramatic music) Apple's gonna be in trouble now...
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that IDG and the Expo team were getting more press pass requests than they expected, and decided to look into the matter. The first thing they probably did was ask people like Ms. Welch for input as to who could be considered a true journalist and who was just a fanboy looking for a free ride. Apple then happily provided their "shit list", and IDG implemented it without wasting another thought on it (bad IDG!).
The case of who started the ball rolling is irrelevant; the fact is that the organisers are trying to keep their press passes from being devalued. There are legitimate reasons to try and check credentials, so that "real journalists" don't get lumped in together with "bloggers and fanzines".
Well, it all depends on where you stand. Apple has been lowering the price for their equimpment, and a lot of people are (grudgingly) admitting that they are cheaper than a lot of *comparably outfitted* machines. So yes, Apple isn't in the bargain basement, but goes for the "more bang for your buck". (IMO, they have to, especially since Motorola fell behind Moore's Law.)
Apple does pack a lot of stuff in that you could live without at home (such as fast Ethernet cards *and* 56k modems), and is notoriously unfriendly to the "roll your own" crowd. Then again, the hardware is one of the most important aspects of the Mac, as it was with the Amiga. Without this tight integration of hardware and the OS, the Apple woudn't have survived.
And that is another reason why I think this bird won't fly: the Amiga was actually a miracle in *hardware*; the OS was what let it shine.
Revolutionary as the Amiga systems were, I don't think that this new offering has that much of a chance.
Apple's current high-quality/low-price hardware strategy will undercut the demand for this thing before it gets off of the ground. Add to that Apple's new NeXT-based OS, and the chances look even dimmer. As for native apps, I think Be's demise should show where this leads.
The Amiga was killed by several factors. It was a giant leap forward, but after that it languished. Its image was tarnished by the fact that is was available from K-Mart and other discount stores. There were so many games available that the public didn't consider it a "real" business machine.
I am also a little surprised that you consider the Macintosh OS so lowly. Compared to the other GUI's of the time, it was polished and well thought-out. True, multi-tasking didn't come until much later in the game, but it started the DTP revolution.
Yeah, let's hear it for smaller keyboards!
I was quite happy with the keyboard provided with my Mac Classic II. It felt right, and only had the keys I really needed. The Mac was designed for heavy mouse usage, and the keyboard reflected that attitude.
I don't really want the whole row of function keys on my home computer (at work it's different: I store all of my macros up there). Desk space is a minimum, and a reduced-size keyboard and a Wacom Graphire are perfect for my cluttered home desk.
I never had a chance to try out those "chording" keyboard replacements, so I can't comment on those. Pity. They seemed like they could have been small, comfortable and fast - once you passed the learning curve.
According to what I saw, MS has put Windows 2000 up for EAL4 evaluation, with some funky exeptions. Apple is going for EAL3 evaluation first and probably did a lot of internal tests first.
Win2000 has been in the lab for a LONG time now, and still isn't certified. Is Microsoft playing the "submitted for" advertising game, hoping that it can run out the clock yet again?
I think Apple would like to keep the version vumber more or less in the background and just call it Mac OS X. Whether the version number changes before or after the decimal (or even which decimal place) is more marketing than any written law.
Mac OS X will probably keep all of its version numbers as 10.n.n as long as possible. Only when a MAJOR overhaul happens will they move to calling it Mac OS XI.
I think it could also be cluelessness mixed in with a large dosage of arrogance. Until now, the attitude Microsoft keeps on trying to project is: "Yeah, Linux is fun, but when you're ready to do REAL business work, we're right over here!"
Although I wouldn't put it past MS to put some dupes into their booth to draw fire, they could also be planning on spinning this in a later press release, talking about how many visitors they had (not mentioning that they were almost all hecklers!).
The sad thing is that most record companies and movie companies are just arms of one bigger company- see Sony, Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom, and so on. Is this a case of the home video division being determined not to repeat the mistakes of their music division brethren? Or are they playing "drug dealer", trying to get us hooked on their DVD crack?
I think it's just a case of inertia on the part of the recording execs. They can't see how lowering prices could boost sales. Or rather they can, and realise it'd help the little guys more. They don't care about the music, the musicians, or even the "Industry". They just care about their empires.
(BTW: when you see a really cheap CD amongst a lot of high-priced crap, don't you instictively think that it must be even crappier? It takes effort to overcome their conditioning.)
Actually, I think a "reboot" version might also be worthwhile, restarting with the William Hartnell Doctor, and setting it in the early 1960's. This time around, though, they should go for a closed meta-storyline, and work out the relationships between the characters and villians beforehand.
There were plenty of wonderful stories, but there were also some clunkers. If the BBC produces this itself, it has a better chance of surviving.
This wasn't a test of all-around server tastiness, but of the area Xinet is most interested in- publishing. That means pulling files down local with Photoshop, collecting for a print job (whether QuarkXPress or InDesign), opening the darn EPS file straight from The Server because the Boss doesn't want you saving it on the local drive, and so on. It's the client that needs the AltiVec optimisation; the server just needs to "shovel" the files here and there.
Xinet needs to know where its software will be best used, so that they can plan accordingly. Other 'benchmarks' aren't interesting to them.
Y'see, until now, WinNT box sellers were trying to muscle into the publishing server market, extolling their rack-mountability and cross-platform compatability, and Linux box manufacturers weren't that far behind. You could say that Apple's xServe is going to win back those shops first, then go for the mixed-OS networks, securing the flanks before launching the main offensive into Serverland...
Actually, a lot of Microsoft's advertising belies a subtle sabotage by their PR types. Remember the Stones song whose refrain was "You make a grown man cry"? How about the Office ads with a requiem for a soundtrack? Or the way the Windows logo looks like it's going down/to crash?
I definitely think that it's a subtle jab at clueless leaders, that the marketing types are playing jokes on the computer geeks that supposedly run the place.
They were probably having trouble keeping a straight face as they suggested Freon. "Oh yeah, it'll connotate 'Free' and 'on'! (snicker) Um, I gotta go to another meeting! (burst of laughter as the door closes)"
"Brazil by far the best team in the world at the moment will have to qualify for the next world cup in Germany 2006 where as runners-up Germany get a free ticket as hosts, oh the irony!"
It was at the request of a lot of the members, as the qualifying round lets a coach iron out a lot of the problems in his team, keep cohesion, and so on.
The automatic qualification for France was (according to conventional wisdom) one of the leading reasons why they fared so poorly. The stars were too busy playing for their contract clubs, doing merchandising tours, and never really gelled into a team.
That said, I enjoyed the 2002 World Cup. It's one of the few pro games left that hasn't changed its rules to pander to the TV ad structure.
Right on. The whole problem with cyber-attacks is that they're not sexy--I mean, thrilling--enough to the average glory hound. Even the Anthrax scare is too low-key for Al Qaida.
Terrorists want to grab the front page, the lead story, and kill people so that other people will listen to them. They're in it for the adrenalin rush, the feeling of power. Computers are too impersonal to hold their attention for very long.
If anybody's going to start cyberterrorism, it won't be for political purposes. It'll be for extortion, "protection money" and industrial espionage. Cybermafiosi are *much* more likely than Cyberterrorists.
"Hey, I got an idea for a quick million or two as pocket change. Let's sign on with Microsoft on this Palladium scheme, hit them for consulting fees, and them tell them it can't be done after they pay!"
"What about AMD?"
"We can fool them. 'Smatter of fact, I bet they're already planning the same thing."
The sky may not be falling, but it also fits in with vilefying emulators and their ilk, as Microsoft really *is* running scared. Now that Intel and IBM are working so closely with Linux, and Apple maneuvering itself to becoming the developer's platform of choice, Microsoft sees its comfortable monopoly under attack.
Microsoft is paranoid about becoming irrelevant, about anybody doing to them what they did to IBM. They aren't truly innovative, and they know it. It even shows with this re-hashing of Intel's unique identifier plan as a way to lock out the competition. The wierd thing is, this comes just as experts (even from Microsoft itself!) are debunking technological security schemes!
Another thing I noticed is that this whole "Palladium" is still speculative vaporware. It's as if Microsoft wants *us* to define it with our hopes and fears, or as if they heard of another meme and wanted to claim that they thought of it first.
So maybe the sky *is* falling...from Microsoft's point of view.
Buddy, your tinfoil-hat rantings about the whole Iran-Contra scandal and Nixon's saintliness seem to suggest that you've been in the GOP's Orbital Mind Control Laser Test Range a little too long.
Seriously, you seem to miss the gist of Watergate, namely that it was a huge shakeup of political faith, where Nixon and his associates were suddenly viewed as corrupt, paranoid and willing to commit major crimes to stay in power. It was the first such scarring of the American psyche, and the reason why all other scandals carry "-gate" as a pseudo-clever suffix.
Iran-Contra is remembered not only because it was undeniably illegal (don't forget that Ollie North was convicted), but because of how it became a lose-lose situation for Reagan in the long run: either he wasn't aware of what his aides were planning, or he knowingly broke the law. His presidency is now often regarded as "asleep at the wheel" by pundits because of this.
Clinton's scandals are notable because they dealt with relatively trivial matters being used as political weapons. The bitterness of the attackers and the defenders is said to have eroded public trust in both parties (and played a direct role in the last presidential election). It is also noted for eroding the world's view of the US, for who else but the prudish Americans would make a national crisis out of a person's sex life?
I suppose I've given you more of an answer than you deserve, but you need to realise that the rest of this planet doesn't quite think like you do. Watergate was a grand drama, to which the Clinton scandals are merely petty soap opera.
It's easy to jump on the mayor for being a censor tyrant for this action, and some conspiracy buffs will undoubtedly claim the fire was set by the authorities on purpose. I think the real cause is the cavalier lack of any safety measures. Most of these cafés were illegal most likely because they didn't conform to any sort of building codes or grease the right palms.
After the excitement dies back down, several of these cafés will be up and running again, most likely under new aliases and at new locations.
I doubt that this will have more than a temporary effect. Even on fire safety.
"Complete his training"? I think the way he's going, it will require courses in cackling, dramatic lighting and keeping your white persian from coughing up hairballs on the Console of Doom.
This would fit in with their "it's all better on a Mac" strategy, along with the XServe lineup. They'll keep the non-Mac versions alive as a way of enticing professionals to the dark side, but making damn well sure that these programs run better on Apple hardware.
It is interesting to see Apple follow a "convert or be eaten" strategy. We expect this from Microsoft, but from Apple? Heck, at one time they were considering selling FileMaker!
All this high-end buying binges are nice and all, but I hope Apple puts more effort into "average joe" application, like giving their programmers time to work on Open Office (or bring out a professional version of Apple Works).
It's all about costs. They *could* make a CGI or model version, but they probably thought a little palm grease would save them time and money.
If they get blown off for being too wacky/arrogant, then they'll look at whether to do models, CGI or a mixture of both.
Even with all the cash the Matrix made, they still need to avoid blowing the budget with this movie. I don't blame them for investegating this angle.
What I want is that I can take my data with me, and not have to broadcast it through the airwaves. I'd prefer a standardised, hot-swappable memory cartridge format. I want a way to physically secure sensitive data like my checkbook balance and other bank info. I want to be able to pop my info in a slew of devices, from a small cell phone (for quick payments) to a laptop (for the extra heavy duty stuff). If I have to access the network to get my info, then I'm just needlessly vulnerable.
On a related note...
Expecting one unified information format is not realistic, but I do expect manufacturers to settle on one or two standards for peripheral interfaces. When I buy a keyboard or a new memory card for my PDA, I shoudn't have to worry too much about what model PDA I have. (OK, this is only applicable to a degree, analogous to cars all using 24v for electronics and standardised "cigarette lighter" interfaces, but individual sizes for spark plugs and windshield wipers.)
Another piece of info that this isn't all that serious is that he refers to Han being trained in an Imperial academy. Since that information isn't in the movies (*I* haven't seen it there), he must have gotten it from one of the novelisations. Thus, he's drawing from the sources that he specifically bars!
I also like how he describes Piett's rise to power, yet neglects how the predecessor was removed from office. Or how Vader offhandedly killed a competent captain for getting outwitted by Solo.
The claim of loyalty is also just as far-fetched. Member worlds may have royalty, but this had no bearing on senatorial power. As far as we can tell, each world was allowed to choose its senators in a way its rulers saw fit.
Lastly, I wonder how he gets the idea that the Emperor is benevolent if he rules by fear? I don't recall the original trilogy ever showing what life was like in the heart of the empire; the stories all were set on peripheral worlds - "in the boonies", so to speak.
It's not bad for a "Ha Ha Made You Think" article. Also good for seeing through the arguments of other power advocates.
Expectations rise and fall in tides. You ought to know that by now. When the first Star Wars came out in '77, what good fantasy action flicks were there? Planet of the Apes had been run into the ground, and no studio was willing to spend the money needed then to generate the F/X needed for suspension of disbelief.
Star Wars got into production because it was an hommage on the old serials, and George Lucas was typecast as good for "good old days" stuff thanks to American Graffiti. I don't think anybody expected to touch a nerve like it did. Now it (ironically) has it's own wave of nostalgia to overcome, like any "first love".
You want movies made for the sake of the art? Go to Europe. Deal with government grants instead of stockholders. If it succeeds, Hollywood will buy the rights and remake it. But don't expect Hollywood to take the first risk.
Ah, yes, of course.
And criminals aren't punished, they're sent to "correctional facilities".
Silly me, I should have caught that.
"Jobs cited example of multiple Macs working at home sharing MP3 files with iTunes between multiple computers. Demonstrated example of MP3 files streaming over AirPort."
Holy Heck! Is Jobs deliberately trying to piss off the recording industry?
(FX: Dramatic music)
Apple's gonna be in trouble now...