Whether deliberate or not, this statement actually raises religious thought to the level of scientific pursuits. Science and (known) religions are not equivalent. Ever.
Science simply is, because of its fundamental grounding in reality. The scientific method says, "reality exists, no matter what humans want or would prefer; therefore our tests must reflect reality, eliminate our intrinsic subjectivity and be demonstrable via replicable results to all." Religion says, "we assert certain beliefs, which you must accept in their entirety without question or dissent. (Oh, and we conveniently left out the problem that much of what we say cannot be proven by any means.)"
Science is not about interpreting reality, it's about understanding it. Conservative Christiantity (which is what ID proponents are all from, not other branches) would argue to the death provable facts if they conflicted with doctrine. Let's not even begin to discuss the linguistic contortions with which supposed Biblical literalists pick and choose from the Bible, often to support a political point, not a moral one.
Costs and benefits? The acquisition of knowledge, pursued scientifically and rigorously, is at odds with conservative Christiantity, which denies reality. Benefits of science: inarguable. Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of its use. Religious adherents can insist all they want that 1+1=5, but it won't make it true.
Again and again, the "special rights" argument. It is empty, without substance, existing only to provide seemingly-reasonable talking points for the unthinking.
To borrow from a post I and another gay man made on another website earlier this year:
Let's take one example of the "protected class" status that you claim I have. Say you and I work for the same employer, one who provides some level of health insurance coverage to employees. Is it acceptable with you if I am, in effect, forced indirectly to subsidize the insurance plan of your spouse and children because you have a "normal" family, while I am denied the opportunity to add my partner/lover or the child of my partner to my policy? Remember, you're getting your extra piece of the pie; the money to pay your family premium has to come from somewhere. Should you divorce your wife and marry another woman with children, I would indirectly contribute to their coverage as well.
When you and I retire, your wife at the time (let's say wife #4 by now, a younger woman) would likely share your retirement benefits. If you precede her in death, the benefits to her will most likely continue. My non-sharable, non-transferable benefits, however, will cease entirely upon my death, even while your widow's checks may continue for several more decades -- just another piece of the pie that she deserves, obviously, for loving a person of the opposite sex. In some cases, more than one of your ex-wives could also draw certain benefits based upon your employment record and retirement plans.
And if, before your death, you needed government assistance for nursing home care, your wife would not lose her home. If I needed the same care, however, I would be forced to liquidate my assets, including the home I may have shared with a same-sex partner for 50 years. Even if the house is in both names, I could be forced to sell my portion, effectively throwing him out on the street unless he was able to buy the house again, this time at its appreciated value. (Although it would not happen in my own family, legal wrangling by a deceased partner's biological family sometimes bankrupts the surviving partner, regardless of the safeguards they had in place.)
The notion that to be gay means that gay marriage is automatically supported is reductionist...but unsurprising.
My partner and I don't care about "marriage." What we want is to not be treated as though our ten-year committment is somehow going to ruin society if it's recognized in any way.
We just want to not be treated differently. Whether you call it marriage is up to you. Activists insisting on same-gender "marriage" vs. calling it something else are missing the point. Acting as though any progress towards equality is insufficient if the label doesn't come along is not only childish, it's unrealistic and counterproductive. Society is not going to evolve because you throw a tantrum. You have only to look at the history of the civil rights movement to learn.
It's grimly amusing to reflect on the notion that the anti-gay-marriage crowd isn't worried about the ever-increasing divorce rate. But that is the classic tactic of the demagogue: conflate the issues, muddy the waters with emotionally loaded terminology, and go after the more vulnerable.
Personally, I'm tired of having to beg for crumbs from society's table and endure the abuse. Antigay prejudice (yes, PREJUDICE) is pretty much the last respectable prejudice in America (though there's still some room for anti-immigrant sentiment). And the "pro-gay-marriage" activists play right into the hands of the bigots.
Cracker Barrel got away with firing people for being gay for over a decade before they decided the adverse publicity had become too much. Several wrongful termination lawsuits got tossed out; the employees had no recourse other than to go get another job and hope that their potential new employers weren't bigoted.
- "Why did you leave your last job?"
- "Well, sir, I was fired for
Trust me. I know. You take money, you're on the hook forever.
I have helped many people. Sometimes because they asked, and sometimes because my boss told me to. (This is only partly a consequence of being in IT.) I've helped family, friends, poor people and the very rich.
You know who appreciates it least? The rich ones. They act as though they are (a) entitled and (b) that it really ought to be free, though they'll never admit to either sin. I've had wealthy people expect me to find them a replacement part because I work at a tech company and "must have a bunch of spare parts lying around." Not working themselves, they have no clue that I have a job and actually have to support myself with it, so they have no compunction about calling me in the middle of the day and expecting me to explain the error message on their screen. The self-centeredness is unbelievable.
Then there are the people who think they're just as smart as you and it's merely a case of you knowing which button to push. I call this the "Magic Button Theory." This means they value your time even less.
Bottom line: you're being exploited by most people. Only a few will appreciate your knowledge for what it is, and fewer still will appreciate that this isn't your primary job. In the end, I concluded that any money I made wasn't worth the aggravation. I found a great company to refer those who could afford it.
Those who can't: I can help, and enjoy it. Since no money is involved, I can actually set limits.
TOS: enjoyed it in reruns as a kid. Thought the first season ruled, the second season was mostly good, the third season was headed downhill fast. Lesson: the quality (read: intelligence level) of the show's producer(s) matters.
TNG: first seasons wildly uneven. Cheesy opticals (FX), unclear story lines, characters were thin at best. Season 5 was generally good. In the end, okay, but cut out about half the episodes. Lesson: quantity does not equal quality.
DS9: A great idea, indifferently executed. The whole Bajoran gods idea could have been a fantastic bit of sci-fi, but in the end they just were used as deus ex machina. The introduction of the war story arc (although probably a response to Babylon 5) rescued it and made me actually want to tune in. Lesson: go somewhere with your big idea by giving the writers a framework.
Voyager: Interesting idea (lost, out of touch), horribly executed. Janeway was in need of serious medication, as she was at a minimum bipolar. I wouldn't follow her as a leader for a month, much less years. The producers introduced ideas and at the end of the episode would use the "magic reset button" of time warp, tech change, or the jargon of the week. The ship acquired technology which gave it advantages, then the next episode it would be gone and might as well have never existed, to say nothing of frequently suffering damage which should have required time in dock. Utterly uncompelling and frustrating. Lesson: there's no point in having a show if it's not going anywhere with the characters, story or even the technology.
Enterprise: I knew that when I heard who would produce that it would be garbage. When I heard the theme song, after cleaning up the vomit, I knew my worst suspicions were nowhere near what they should have been. The time-machine reset button, the unbelievable screwing with the canon, the notion that a ship could be remote controlled all the way from the Romulan Empire...
Just...let...it...die, folks. The idiots who produce it are incapable of doing good work. It's just a money machine to them. Giving them your money is counterproductive. Find someone talented like Joss Whedon or Strasczinsky (sp?) instead. Don't save Enterprise.
Civ II was played endlessly at home, on the plane, on vacation...the ultimate time-passer (and waster). I have lost track of all the city name themes we would come up with...Trek, Lewis Carroll, Bab5, Sixties TV, you name it....
But when Civ II came out, it promised to improve all those things which Civ II lacked. We bought it the day it was available, played it for weeks, and gave up in annoyance, frustration and disappointment.
What was wrong?
The game was slow. Dog slow. 'Nuff said. I could have lived with this if it hadn't been for...
A HORRIBLE interface. Bad graphics, cheesy icons, ugly cartoonish characters, confusing buttons, slow performance...I could go on for days. This drove me nuts. Clearly not designed by someone with any real interface experience.
Competing civilizations were right in your terrain and seemed to get in your face way too quickly and were too competitive, even at the second-to-lowest skill level. After a couple of dozen attempts (in each of several games) to get rid of competitors early, late and otherwise, it just seemed to be nearly impossible. Of course, there was always the alternative of playing an easy game, but what's the point of that?
The diplomacy options were improved, but the diplomacy interface was rotten.
The Mac version...other posters have commented on that. An embarrassment.
What Take Two Should Do
Stop and breathe. Don't just clone Civ III and clean it up.
Look at Alpha Centauri. Although in essence a richer version of Civ II, its interface was amazingly clean, its descriptions of technology and societies were deep, detailed and compelling, its graphics very good for the time, and its overarching story actually thought out.
Read Boorstin's The Discoverers. If a history book is a page-turner, this is it. Highlights the role inventions and knowledge played in the conflict of cities, nations and societies, and contrasts the different societies in an often startlingly fresh way. One of the Civ branches (Test of Time?) had the clock as a major invention, which it was; that's just one example.
Hire a usability expert. This current craze for themed interfaces makes usability go down in favor of cute buttons which either all look alike or don't make any sense. Everything doesn't have to look like a Windows app (or a Mac app), but please put your interface in front of Grandma at least once before adopting it.
Hire a graphic designer, not some kid out of college. Again, see Alpha Centauri. Cool, clean, comprehensible (mostly, though the unit modification rules were a little unclear at first).
Offer finer gradation between levels of gameplay. Going from insultingly easy to seriously hard in one step is a bit much.
Don't insult your customers' intelligence. It should be somewhat educational. I learned more about the fictional Alpha Centauri society than I did about our own from Civ.
Code so a Mac version is easier and can be brought out more quickly. Don't depend on MS-specific technologies. (Hey, could even make a Linux version easier!)
Overall, I hope the designers have fun in bringing a new version to life.
(side note: I'm glad it's no longer with Infogrames...let's just say it's not a well-run company.)
I had a boss who was scary smart but was rotten at getting good work out of people. He was definitely a geek in an environment where tech smarts counted, but couldn't motivate his directs. We spent a lot of time (we were managers ourselves) griping about his unapproachability, unclear strategy, and last-minute instructions. We were definitely motivated to not manage our directs the same way, and in that sense learned a lot, but...a good boss is a rarity.
For your situation, let's assume some environmental parameters:
One, that you are probably smarter than much of your staff.
Two, that you've already made some mistakes and annoyed or to some degree alienated some of your staff.
Three, that you have enough humility to recognize that your intelligence can be trumped by another's experience. (Why else would you ask the question?)
So, the advice:
Treat your staff as though they are as smart as you are, even if you both know otherwise. You want your staff to respect you for your intelligence, not resent you as a know-it-all. Instead of ruling by decree, go for a more participatory style, while reserving the final decision to your judgment. State the problem, listen to what your staff tell you, choose the direction and if you disagree with their point of view, tell them why and see if they get your reasoning. You can learn a lot by doing this, especially in new positions or environments. Moreover, I've defused dozens of potential conflicts that way. Doing this lets your staff see you as open to feedback. ("He doesn't always agree with me, but he always listens to us.")
It's possible to overcompensate in this, but listening is an art most managers never acquire - which in many cases keeps them from advancing.
Give feedback right away, whether good or bad. My current boss says "bad news doesn't get better with age," and he's right. Good news doesn't either. If one of your staff receives praise and it's sent to you, send it on to them and cc your boss. All you have to do is add "Great work, Joe!" People really appreciate this and get the sense that you genuinely appreciate them and respect them enough to share it. In an environment without bonuses or other performance incentives, this can sometimes be the only extra "compensation" people receive.
Don't hide in your office. "Hide," you say? That's what your staff will call it if you always make them come to you. Go to them with questions. Visit their desk. Ask about the pictures on the wall (unless it's someone who will bend your ear forever). Walk around and listen to what's going on. Take your directs out for coffee one afternoon a month and don't necessarily talk just about work.
Lastly, provide your staff with a context in which to view their work efforts. What are you working on for the next year? Show them a slide with a calendar (bar format, not a month view). Explain how what they're doing helps the company. This is a huge motivator, and, not incidentally, a useful tool for you if your boss wants to know what you're doing.
This ain't all there is, but it's more than enough to get started with. There are plenty of books which will tell you about business, HR rules, etc., but people aren't a set of rules, except for the Golden one. As a manager, you need respect to be effective. Your staff won't give it unless they think they get it from you.
Enterprise is a slight improvement over Voyager, but it won't go anywhere. These are the same Hollywood types who produced Voyager, which had incredibly inconsistent characters, couldn't keep track of where the ship was, and huge plot events evaporated the following episode. They had a brief moment of glory when they introduced Seven, who actually had a character development story arc. Once the ratings went up, it was back to the same old grind.
I could go on all day, citing chapter and verse, but it would just give me another ulcer. Why can't these idiots write? This is why the Trek franchise will never amount to anything: No one with a brain or a heart is running it, and they wouldn't recognize real writing if it fell in their lunch.
This is the latest in a line of laws which, perhaps unintentionally, transfer power from individuals to corporations. On its face, the proposal is startling enough in the depth of its apparent intention to reinvent copyright law. There are a number of troubling implications, if one extrapolates for a moment...
To begin with, consider the historic reality around new law. The legislation may seem bad, but it could very well become worse by the time it's enacted. Or after: often new law is amended by further legislation, usually through tightening loopholes. The other path is through the courts, and the recent history of corporations using the courts to silence or bully individuals augurs poorly for the smaller party. Theoretically, the law could be tightened or loosened, but with the enormous amounts of money at stake, and the influence that money has over our political system, the odds are very much in favor of the content companies.
The scheme itself isn't discussed in the law, and all sorts of mischief are possible there. What if the security scheme is designed with interactive authentication? Then it would require a connection to some corporate database, before any content would play. Given that most consumer devices are fixed-location, it would be trivial to track usage surreptitiously, much as is done now with Internet access. However, the security scheme could also include a requirement that consumers have a unique identifier. Then, tracking becomes inherent to the scheme, and can be done regardless of a consumer's or a device's location.
Going further, it is possible to imagine that tracking would happen even on such minor items as movie trailers or song previews. While content organizations would appreciate the ability to note that someone downloaded a trailer, then being able to send them an e-mail urging them to see the movie itself, do we want them to know this much?
If all devices incorporate copy protection, then the playing field is forever and dramatically tipped against consumers. If, for a content creator, copy protection is easy to take advantage of, then there is no reason not to use it. In the new content-controlled environment, virtually everything could fall under this scheme. Music, movies, software: any digital content. To a company with a hammer, everything looks like a nail: if everything is trackable, everything will be tracked. Even in the absence of direct financial gain, knowledge about customers is considered useful until proven otherwise. If payment is inherent to the scheme, then the likelihood is that anonymity will be either impossible or difficult. Given that content creators have no financial incentives to provide for anonymity, and numerous reasons to avoid it, the final scheme would probably not include the option, except perhaps in non-monetary transactions.
Now consider the possibility that content would not only be controlled, but would, under this scheme, be required to be controlled. As an example, a future version of Windows Media Player might not play any uncontrolled content. The more technical user might simply propose to download a non-controlled media viewing software, but what if the operating system, in conjunction with the hardware, incorporates the copy protection scheme? Such a non-controlled player would be illegal, simply because it did not incorporate copy protection. What of Linux and its open-source brethren? The proposed law would appear to require the inclusion of copy protection. Such a major legislative intrusion would (I believe) be a first in the world of open source.
Everyone needs to get moving on combating this. As another poster noted, don't just sit there and complain. Write your legislators, GENTLY but firmly expressing your dismay over this issue. Then contact your local media (the few not owned by a large media conglomerate, anyway), explain to them why this is bad, and tell them to get off their butts and report on this.
As first-time homebuyers, the web was GREAT for our search last year. We were able to do a great deal of research:
price comparisons
area comparisons
housing stock/type comparisons
information about amenities in each area we were considering
This allowed us to decide that we didn't want to live in several areas, and helped us find a more affordable area in (believe it or not) the Bay Area. It also meant that by the time we went in to actually narrow down our search for a house and a realtor, we knew pretty much everything about the area's housing stock and were well-armed against the few charlatans we encountered.
The site we found most valuable for the area was mlslistings.com. (Santa Cruz mountains, though it covers most of the Bay Area.) As someone else noted, the MLS number is helpful. Since buying the house, we've been worried about losing value, and have continued to visit this site, to find (to our reassurance but doubtless not to current homebuyers) that the prices in the area are at least steady and perhaps trending upwards.
That having been said, beyond whether it's got the square footage you want, the right number of bedrooms, a garage, and that detached servant's quarters, you won't learn about the reality of being in a particular house from a website with a single 100x75 pixel photo. But you can do your own price and feature comparisons, ignore irrelevant properties (if you've got kids, you probably don't want a one-bedroom) and figure out what's out there. This also saves you a lot of time driving around to houses you aren't interested in.
The most important piece of advice I can give is DO THE RESEARCH. Homebuying is probably the most drawn-out, complicated, time-consuming, and above all, frustrating real-world thing most of us will ever voluntarily undertake. Know the tax consequences, the time and effort it will take, and budget for a lot of unforeseen expenses.
Oh, and, don't get laid off like me...mortgages are a killer if you
don't have a lot of money in the bank. Anybody want to rent a peaceful, sunny, recently-renovated 4-bedroom on a ridgeline right outside the valley?
Slashdot Mirror
Now that has some meat on it. Some good reading. If your posting needed mod points I'd mod it up.
I didn't get that from your first posting, however.
Whether deliberate or not, this statement actually raises religious thought to the level of scientific pursuits. Science and (known) religions are not equivalent. Ever.
Science simply is, because of its fundamental grounding in reality. The scientific method says, "reality exists, no matter what humans want or would prefer; therefore our tests must reflect reality, eliminate our intrinsic subjectivity and be demonstrable via replicable results to all." Religion says, "we assert certain beliefs, which you must accept in their entirety without question or dissent. (Oh, and we conveniently left out the problem that much of what we say cannot be proven by any means.)"
Science is not about interpreting reality, it's about understanding it. Conservative Christiantity (which is what ID proponents are all from, not other branches) would argue to the death provable facts if they conflicted with doctrine. Let's not even begin to discuss the linguistic contortions with which supposed Biblical literalists pick and choose from the Bible, often to support a political point, not a moral one.
Costs and benefits? The acquisition of knowledge, pursued scientifically and rigorously, is at odds with conservative Christiantity, which denies reality. Benefits of science: inarguable. Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of its use. Religious adherents can insist all they want that 1+1=5, but it won't make it true.
I hope this isn't what you meant.
Again and again, the "special rights" argument. It is empty, without substance, existing only to provide seemingly-reasonable talking points for the unthinking.
To borrow from a post I and another gay man made on another website earlier this year:
Let's take one example of the "protected class" status that you claim I have. Say you and I work for the same employer, one who provides some level of health insurance coverage to employees. Is it acceptable with you if I am, in effect, forced indirectly to subsidize the insurance plan of your spouse and children because you have a "normal" family, while I am denied the opportunity to add my partner/lover or the child of my partner to my policy? Remember, you're getting your extra piece of the pie; the money to pay your family premium has to come from somewhere. Should you divorce your wife and marry another woman with children, I would indirectly contribute to their coverage as well.
When you and I retire, your wife at the time (let's say wife #4 by now, a younger woman) would likely share your retirement benefits. If you precede her in death, the benefits to her will most likely continue. My non-sharable, non-transferable benefits, however, will cease entirely upon my death, even while your widow's checks may continue for several more decades -- just another piece of the pie that she deserves, obviously, for loving a person of the opposite sex. In some cases, more than one of your ex-wives could also draw certain benefits based upon your employment record and retirement plans.
And if, before your death, you needed government assistance for nursing home care, your wife would not lose her home. If I needed the same care, however, I would be forced to liquidate my assets, including the home I may have shared with a same-sex partner for 50 years. Even if the house is in both names, I could be forced to sell my portion, effectively throwing him out on the street unless he was able to buy the house again, this time at its appreciated value. (Although it would not happen in my own family, legal wrangling by a deceased partner's biological family sometimes bankrupts the surviving partner, regardless of the safeguards they had in place.)
The notion that to be gay means that gay marriage is automatically supported is reductionist...but unsurprising.
My partner and I don't care about "marriage." What we want is to not be treated as though our ten-year committment is somehow going to ruin society if it's recognized in any way.
We just want to not be treated differently. Whether you call it marriage is up to you. Activists insisting on same-gender "marriage" vs. calling it something else are missing the point. Acting as though any progress towards equality is insufficient if the label doesn't come along is not only childish, it's unrealistic and counterproductive. Society is not going to evolve because you throw a tantrum. You have only to look at the history of the civil rights movement to learn.
It's grimly amusing to reflect on the notion that the anti-gay-marriage crowd isn't worried about the ever-increasing divorce rate. But that is the classic tactic of the demagogue: conflate the issues, muddy the waters with emotionally loaded terminology, and go after the more vulnerable.
Personally, I'm tired of having to beg for crumbs from society's table and endure the abuse. Antigay prejudice (yes, PREJUDICE) is pretty much the last respectable prejudice in America (though there's still some room for anti-immigrant sentiment). And the "pro-gay-marriage" activists play right into the hands of the bigots.
Cracker Barrel got away with firing people for being gay for over a decade before they decided the adverse publicity had become too much. Several wrongful termination lawsuits got tossed out; the employees had no recourse other than to go get another job and hope that their potential new employers weren't bigoted.
- "Why did you leave your last job?"
- "Well, sir, I was fired for
Trust me. I know. You take money, you're on the hook forever.
I have helped many people. Sometimes because they asked, and sometimes because my boss told me to. (This is only partly a consequence of being in IT.) I've helped family, friends, poor people and the very rich.
You know who appreciates it least? The rich ones. They act as though they are (a) entitled and (b) that it really ought to be free, though they'll never admit to either sin. I've had wealthy people expect me to find them a replacement part because I work at a tech company and "must have a bunch of spare parts lying around." Not working themselves, they have no clue that I have a job and actually have to support myself with it, so they have no compunction about calling me in the middle of the day and expecting me to explain the error message on their screen. The self-centeredness is unbelievable.
Then there are the people who think they're just as smart as you and it's merely a case of you knowing which button to push. I call this the "Magic Button Theory." This means they value your time even less.
Bottom line: you're being exploited by most people. Only a few will appreciate your knowledge for what it is, and fewer still will appreciate that this isn't your primary job. In the end, I concluded that any money I made wasn't worth the aggravation. I found a great company to refer those who could afford it.
Those who can't: I can help, and enjoy it. Since no money is involved, I can actually set limits.
TOS: enjoyed it in reruns as a kid. Thought the first season ruled, the second season was mostly good, the third season was headed downhill fast. Lesson: the quality (read: intelligence level) of the show's producer(s) matters.
TNG: first seasons wildly uneven. Cheesy opticals (FX), unclear story lines, characters were thin at best. Season 5 was generally good. In the end, okay, but cut out about half the episodes. Lesson: quantity does not equal quality.
DS9: A great idea, indifferently executed. The whole Bajoran gods idea could have been a fantastic bit of sci-fi, but in the end they just were used as deus ex machina. The introduction of the war story arc (although probably a response to Babylon 5) rescued it and made me actually want to tune in. Lesson: go somewhere with your big idea by giving the writers a framework.
Voyager: Interesting idea (lost, out of touch), horribly executed. Janeway was in need of serious medication, as she was at a minimum bipolar. I wouldn't follow her as a leader for a month, much less years. The producers introduced ideas and at the end of the episode would use the "magic reset button" of time warp, tech change, or the jargon of the week. The ship acquired technology which gave it advantages, then the next episode it would be gone and might as well have never existed, to say nothing of frequently suffering damage which should have required time in dock. Utterly uncompelling and frustrating. Lesson: there's no point in having a show if it's not going anywhere with the characters, story or even the technology.
Enterprise: I knew that when I heard who would produce that it would be garbage. When I heard the theme song, after cleaning up the vomit, I knew my worst suspicions were nowhere near what they should have been. The time-machine reset button, the unbelievable screwing with the canon, the notion that a ship could be remote controlled all the way from the Romulan Empire...
Just...let...it...die, folks. The idiots who produce it are incapable of doing good work. It's just a money machine to them. Giving them your money is counterproductive. Find someone talented like Joss Whedon or Strasczinsky (sp?) instead. Don't save Enterprise.
But when Civ II came out, it promised to improve all those things which Civ II lacked. We bought it the day it was available, played it for weeks, and gave up in annoyance, frustration and disappointment.
What was wrong?
- The game was slow. Dog slow. 'Nuff said. I could have lived with this if it hadn't been for...
- A HORRIBLE interface. Bad graphics, cheesy icons, ugly cartoonish characters, confusing buttons, slow performance...I could go on for days. This drove me nuts. Clearly not designed by someone with any real interface experience.
- Competing civilizations were right in your terrain and seemed to get in your face way too quickly and were too competitive, even at the second-to-lowest skill level. After a couple of dozen attempts (in each of several games) to get rid of competitors early, late and otherwise, it just seemed to be nearly impossible. Of course, there was always the alternative of playing an easy game, but what's the point of that?
- The diplomacy options were improved, but the diplomacy interface was rotten.
- The Mac version...other posters have commented on that. An embarrassment.
What Take Two Should DoStop and breathe. Don't just clone Civ III and clean it up.
- Look at Alpha Centauri. Although in essence a richer version of Civ II, its interface was amazingly clean, its descriptions of technology and societies were deep, detailed and compelling, its graphics very good for the time, and its overarching story actually thought out.
- Read Boorstin's The Discoverers. If a history book is a page-turner, this is it. Highlights the role inventions and knowledge played in the conflict of cities, nations and societies, and contrasts the different societies in an often startlingly fresh way. One of the Civ branches (Test of Time?) had the clock as a major invention, which it was; that's just one example.
- Hire a usability expert. This current craze for themed interfaces makes usability go down in favor of cute buttons which either all look alike or don't make any sense. Everything doesn't have to look like a Windows app (or a Mac app), but please put your interface in front of Grandma at least once before adopting it.
- Hire a graphic designer, not some kid out of college. Again, see Alpha Centauri. Cool, clean, comprehensible (mostly, though the unit modification rules were a little unclear at first).
- Offer finer gradation between levels of gameplay. Going from insultingly easy to seriously hard in one step is a bit much.
- Don't insult your customers' intelligence. It should be somewhat educational. I learned more about the fictional Alpha Centauri society than I did about our own from Civ.
- Code so a Mac version is easier and can be brought out more quickly. Don't depend on MS-specific technologies. (Hey, could even make a Linux version easier!)
Overall, I hope the designers have fun in bringing a new version to life.(side note: I'm glad it's no longer with Infogrames...let's just say it's not a well-run company.)
I had a boss who was scary smart but was rotten at getting good work out of people. He was definitely a geek in an environment where tech smarts counted, but couldn't motivate his directs. We spent a lot of time (we were managers ourselves) griping about his unapproachability, unclear strategy, and last-minute instructions. We were definitely motivated to not manage our directs the same way, and in that sense learned a lot, but...a good boss is a rarity.
For your situation, let's assume some environmental parameters:
One, that you are probably smarter than much of your staff.
Two, that you've already made some mistakes and annoyed or to some degree alienated some of your staff.
Three, that you have enough humility to recognize that your intelligence can be trumped by another's experience. (Why else would you ask the question?)
So, the advice:
Treat your staff as though they are as smart as you are, even if you both know otherwise. You want your staff to respect you for your intelligence, not resent you as a know-it-all. Instead of ruling by decree, go for a more participatory style, while reserving the final decision to your judgment. State the problem, listen to what your staff tell you, choose the direction and if you disagree with their point of view, tell them why and see if they get your reasoning. You can learn a lot by doing this, especially in new positions or environments. Moreover, I've defused dozens of potential conflicts that way. Doing this lets your staff see you as open to feedback. ("He doesn't always agree with me, but he always listens to us.")
It's possible to overcompensate in this, but listening is an art most managers never acquire - which in many cases keeps them from advancing.
Give feedback right away, whether good or bad. My current boss says "bad news doesn't get better with age," and he's right. Good news doesn't either. If one of your staff receives praise and it's sent to you, send it on to them and cc your boss. All you have to do is add "Great work, Joe!" People really appreciate this and get the sense that you genuinely appreciate them and respect them enough to share it. In an environment without bonuses or other performance incentives, this can sometimes be the only extra "compensation" people receive.
Don't hide in your office. "Hide," you say? That's what your staff will call it if you always make them come to you. Go to them with questions. Visit their desk. Ask about the pictures on the wall (unless it's someone who will bend your ear forever). Walk around and listen to what's going on. Take your directs out for coffee one afternoon a month and don't necessarily talk just about work.
Lastly, provide your staff with a context in which to view their work efforts. What are you working on for the next year? Show them a slide with a calendar (bar format, not a month view). Explain how what they're doing helps the company. This is a huge motivator, and, not incidentally, a useful tool for you if your boss wants to know what you're doing.
This ain't all there is, but it's more than enough to get started with. There are plenty of books which will tell you about business, HR rules, etc., but people aren't a set of rules, except for the Golden one. As a manager, you need respect to be effective. Your staff won't give it unless they think they get it from you.
Enterprise is a slight improvement over Voyager, but it won't go anywhere. These are the same Hollywood types who produced Voyager, which had incredibly inconsistent characters, couldn't keep track of where the ship was, and huge plot events evaporated the following episode. They had a brief moment of glory when they introduced Seven, who actually had a character development story arc. Once the ratings went up, it was back to the same old grind.
I could go on all day, citing chapter and verse, but it would just give me another ulcer. Why can't these idiots write? This is why the Trek franchise will never amount to anything: No one with a brain or a heart is running it, and they wouldn't recognize real writing if it fell in their lunch.
This is the latest in a line of laws which, perhaps unintentionally, transfer power from individuals to corporations. On its face, the proposal is startling enough in the depth of its apparent intention to reinvent copyright law. There are a number of troubling implications, if one extrapolates for a moment...
To begin with, consider the historic reality around new law. The legislation may seem bad, but it could very well become worse by the time it's enacted. Or after: often new law is amended by further legislation, usually through tightening loopholes. The other path is through the courts, and the recent history of corporations using the courts to silence or bully individuals augurs poorly for the smaller party. Theoretically, the law could be tightened or loosened, but with the enormous amounts of money at stake, and the influence that money has over our political system, the odds are very much in favor of the content companies.
The scheme itself isn't discussed in the law, and all sorts of mischief are possible there. What if the security scheme is designed with interactive authentication? Then it would require a connection to some corporate database, before any content would play. Given that most consumer devices are fixed-location, it would be trivial to track usage surreptitiously, much as is done now with Internet access. However, the security scheme could also include a requirement that consumers have a unique identifier. Then, tracking becomes inherent to the scheme, and can be done regardless of a consumer's or a device's location.
Going further, it is possible to imagine that tracking would happen even on such minor items as movie trailers or song previews. While content organizations would appreciate the ability to note that someone downloaded a trailer, then being able to send them an e-mail urging them to see the movie itself, do we want them to know this much?
If all devices incorporate copy protection, then the playing field is forever and dramatically tipped against consumers. If, for a content creator, copy protection is easy to take advantage of, then there is no reason not to use it. In the new content-controlled environment, virtually everything could fall under this scheme. Music, movies, software: any digital content. To a company with a hammer, everything looks like a nail: if everything is trackable, everything will be tracked. Even in the absence of direct financial gain, knowledge about customers is considered useful until proven otherwise. If payment is inherent to the scheme, then the likelihood is that anonymity will be either impossible or difficult. Given that content creators have no financial incentives to provide for anonymity, and numerous reasons to avoid it, the final scheme would probably not include the option, except perhaps in non-monetary transactions.
Now consider the possibility that content would not only be controlled, but would, under this scheme, be required to be controlled. As an example, a future version of Windows Media Player might not play any uncontrolled content. The more technical user might simply propose to download a non-controlled media viewing software, but what if the operating system, in conjunction with the hardware, incorporates the copy protection scheme? Such a non-controlled player would be illegal, simply because it did not incorporate copy protection. What of Linux and its open-source brethren? The proposed law would appear to require the inclusion of copy protection. Such a major legislative intrusion would (I believe) be a first in the world of open source.
Everyone needs to get moving on combating this. As another poster noted, don't just sit there and complain. Write your legislators, GENTLY but firmly expressing your dismay over this issue. Then contact your local media (the few not owned by a large media conglomerate, anyway), explain to them why this is bad, and tell them to get off their butts and report on this.
This allowed us to decide that we didn't want to live in several areas, and helped us find a more affordable area in (believe it or not) the Bay Area. It also meant that by the time we went in to actually narrow down our search for a house and a realtor, we knew pretty much everything about the area's housing stock and were well-armed against the few charlatans we encountered.
The site we found most valuable for the area was mlslistings.com. (Santa Cruz mountains, though it covers most of the Bay Area.) As someone else noted, the MLS number is helpful. Since buying the house, we've been worried about losing value, and have continued to visit this site, to find (to our reassurance but doubtless not to current homebuyers) that the prices in the area are at least steady and perhaps trending upwards.
That having been said, beyond whether it's got the square footage you want, the right number of bedrooms, a garage, and that detached servant's quarters, you won't learn about the reality of being in a particular house from a website with a single 100x75 pixel photo. But you can do your own price and feature comparisons, ignore irrelevant properties (if you've got kids, you probably don't want a one-bedroom) and figure out what's out there. This also saves you a lot of time driving around to houses you aren't interested in.
The most important piece of advice I can give is DO THE RESEARCH. Homebuying is probably the most drawn-out, complicated, time-consuming, and above all, frustrating real-world thing most of us will ever voluntarily undertake. Know the tax consequences, the time and effort it will take, and budget for a lot of unforeseen expenses.
Oh, and, don't get laid off like me...mortgages are a killer if you don't have a lot of money in the bank. Anybody want to rent a peaceful, sunny, recently-renovated 4-bedroom on a ridgeline right outside the valley?