Actually, AOL shareholders will be trading their shares in for 1.5 shares of Time Warner, so it looks like Time Warner will still be in existance after the meger. I think that means they're buying out AOL, not the other way around.
I dunno, I think that MS has invested quite a bit of time and energy into trying to prove that their gear is better than Linux's.
Besides, the whole idea of Linux pressuring MS to improve ought to bring a smile to the face of every consumer on earth -- this is that whole "competition" thing we've been missing throughout most of the 1990's.
There is some conjecture that the southern polar region might actually be covered in several meters of very lightly packed dust. One of the theories concerning the disappearing act the MPL pulled is that it "sank" into this dust on touchdown.
I have this bizarre image of the Mars Polar Lander plummeting, looney-toons style, to the bottom of this canyon.
Too bad they didn't get any audio back from that microphone on the thing -- I suspect it would have picked up something along the lines of "Meep Meep!", followed by a high whistling sound and a "poof" on impact...
Look at their fsck'ing catalog -- cameras built to look like smoke detectors and wall clocks. Bugs built to hide inside a handset and power themselves from the phone line. "FM Mics" which can be "hidden behind a stamp". These people didn't even pretend that a lot of this gear had legitimate uses!
What shocks me the most is that Slashdotters are supporting the very people who would help employers spy on employees. How much sense does it make to rail against Big Brother and then leap to the defense of his supplier?
Ramsey might have made legal products with legitimate uses, but they also made illegal products to be used for violating people's basic human right to privacy. The feds might have acted like the goon squad (remember, we only have the owner's account), but that's still no excuse for what this company did!
Ask yourself: do you want your employer hiding a camera next to your workstation? Do you want your roommate bugging your phone to see what you say about them? Di you want the competition bugging your water cooler to see what your company is up to?
Do you value your privacy? Ramsey Electronics doesn't.
They *did* sell v/a bugs made to look like clocks and smoke alarms. They also made phone bugs, small mics which could be "easily hidden"...
I'm sorry, but I looked at their catalog yesterday, and they're guilty as sin. You arguement is like saying "They shouldn't have taken the opium when they raided that drug lab; it could have been used for making demerol..."
They stationed me at Auchwitz and I just did what I was suposed to do.
Yeah. Confiscating little electronic spy devices built to look like smoke detectors is exactly the same thing as tearing babies in half, forcing slave labor and exterminating people because of their religion. It's the same as tearing apart families, starving people to death and subjecting them to horrifying medical experiments. Taking a few phone bugs as evidence is exactly the same as treating people like roaches.
im sorry, when the law is wrong, it is wrong to enforce the law.
But the law isn't wrong in this case. Maybe you think that devices which allow people to spy on each other ought to be legal, but I know I don't want *my* employer putting a spy camera over my desk. I know I don't want *my* disgruntled roommate bugging my phone. I know I don't want someone putting a hidden camera in the locker room and selling pictures of *my* girlfriend changing. You can't tell me that a camera built to look like a wall clock is for "hobbyists".
Jesus, think before you start railing in support of the very people who would help others rob you of your rights just to make a buck.
Of course, the Feds in this case went a little bit beyond the call of duty. Let's examine the points where the Feds acted more like the goon squad:
'You can trust us.': Of course, no good cop would ever want to expose themselves to this sort of liability. Nothing would have been harmed by letting the business verify the gear being confiscated ; I would have refused to sign off on it. What Ramsey should have done was run home and grab a camcorder so he could prove that they tried to get away with this.
'If you don't cooperate with us, we'll shut you down': Again, federal agents acting like thugs. Not acceptible; again, if Ramsey could prove this, it would be another problem for the Feds (gee, I wonder if they bugged their own offices....) This is actually probably the worst offense -- it's a slap in the face to due process.
'[They] asked for a recommendation for a good local restaurant and were on their way': I would have sent them to the local grease-hole; none of the agents would have survived if they'd finished their meals... They'd all be dead of heart failure.
That said, blaming the Feds for raiding this place is like blaming fire for buring down your house after you fell asleep smoking. The devices made here did violate US law -- deviced to bug phones and otherwise spy on people. I'm a bit shocked that the Slashdotters are defending the very people who make the gear to strip away our privacy.
The bottom line is that, under current law, federal law enforcement can seize your entire business with little or no judicial oversight, you have no right to appeal, and no right to due process.
While this is a travesty, it is also why companies should always have a couple of backups, and at least one off-site.
For instance, I can see the feds raiding one of my clients, but I can't see them also raiding the President's home computer (which has encrypted data backups sent to it via a dedicated line each night) and a storage locker in the name of the president's wife (which has a locked file cabinet filled with backup tapes).
Remember, kids: The feds aren't omnipotent. If you squirrel away enough backups, they won't be able to grab them all and you can get back into business with a few emergency sub-$1000 computers from Best Buy. The feds almost never look for off-site backups.
Of course, the issue here is that the devices being sold were illegal under US law. If you don't like the law, that's one thing, but criticising law enforcement is like criticising fire for burning down your house after you left those candles burning. I also find it amusing that all the geeks who routinely rail against Big Brother also run to protect the people who make their tools (where do you think corporate security buys their gear?)...
I agree with you here; the current situation with the moderators seems to foster a sort of "preaching to the choir"-type situation. Of course, you can almost always get an anti-open source message moderated up by prefacing your statements with, "I'll probably get moderated down for this, BUT...". Simple psychology, that.
The problem is, of course, what to do about the problem. Slashdot could revert to an unscored setup, but then the signal to noise ratio would be unbearable.
I've been advocating the implementation of "super moderators" for a while now -- a small group of hand-picked moderators who would act kind of like the Supreme Court of moderation. They could do things like yank Natelie Portman or "line noise" posts, assign points to posts at will, etc. You'd have to find the right people -- people who are both extremely good at handling power and who can step back and make "good" calls about unpopular points of view. It would also have to be closely supervised and reviewed, but I think it'd work.
I'm not trying to be a prick (or a troll), but I have noticed that a certain amount of lag before stories are posted has begun to appear since/. was bought by Andover.
For instance, oftentimes there will be a delay of as must as two days (as with the Uri Geller story) from the time that I see an article on Linux Today or another news site and when I see it here. I've been around/. for a while now, and this wasn't always the case.
Is this just a case of waiting for a "slow news day", or is it something more insideous like ANDN wanting to maintain some editorial control over/.? For that matter, has ANDN imposed any other constraints that we're not aware of? Are there any circumstances where you'd see yourself having to remove libelous posts or posts which violate SEC rules (read here: stock manipulation)? Or has Andover been a benevolant king which is dedicated to protecting the happy-go-lucky days of Slashdot using its deep pockets to keep your legal butts covered?
This is a Bad Thing(tm); if nothing else, it sets a bad prescident.
Speed limit enforcement is essentially a cop-out for those hard-to-prove things which, in reality, play a much larger role in causing traffic problems. For instance, tailgating causes more accidents than going 10 MPH over the limit on the interstate, but you almost never hear about someone getting a ticket for tailgating. Why? Because it's hard to prove -- there's no radar, just the officer's word for it.
Here's a list of other traffic infractions which the police should *really* pay attention to:
Reckless Driving: Unfortunately, this means "pissing off the cop" in my town -- the police tack it on when someone ticks them off, not for any particular driving behavior. Still, actual erratic driving causes accidents and should be policed.
Inattentive Driving: This is another one the cops add in when they're pissed. It deserves to be enforced properly, however. I can't count how many times I've seen idiots rooting for CDs or even *reading* while driving. Again, tell me that this isn't as bad as doing 10 MPH over the posted limit. As a special highlight to this, I'd point out that cell phone morons ought to be especially watched for. I mean, studies show that using a cell phone while driving causes as many accidents as OUI, but for some bizarre reason they're not regulated.
Not Signaling: I hate it when people don't use their blinkers. Older drivers (above 40) seem to be especially prone to doing this. As much as I advocate being unpredictable and spontanious in life, I'd suggest not doing so on the interstate.
Going too far under the limit: Just yesterday I was in a 55 zone (yes, I was doing 60) and almost struck a granny who was alternating between 30-35 MPH. I came up over a hill and there she was, practically standing still in her lane. People might *think* they're being safe by going under the limit, but if they go that far under they're actually a much larger hazard.
Old People: I'm not one of those pricks who thinks that drivers licenses should be revoked on your 70th birthday, but I do believe that some older people lose the ability to drive safely as they get older due to medical conditions. There ought to be a graduated system to make the roads safer for the rest of us -- for example, if a person can't pass a night vision test every five years, they ought to be prohibited from driving at night. This doesn't seem cruel and unusual to me; it seems like common sense.
I'm not saying that speed enforcement isn't an element of safety, I'm just saying that it doesn't deserve attention at the expense of other infractions (which are routinely ignored today). If the police and legislators were really interested in protecting drivers from accidents, these are the laws which would be enforced. Simple-minded speed limit enforcement is just a cop-out. Anyone have any additions?
Of course, I never said that you couldn't write dialogue. I did say that certain sections of the script "reads poorly", and by this I meant that they sound odd when recited.
What I did say is that the portion of the script I have read will have to be seriously reworked before it will play well on the big screen. I said this for a number of reasons, all of which I tried to explain in my original post. As an insider on the project, I would be interested to hear your replies to these criticisms (for instance, maybe the director has a plan to demonstrate the evolution of strategy in the battle room).
I'm interested in seeing Ender's Game translate well onto the big screen because I've seen other beloved books (Dune stands out in my mind) turn out very badly on the big screen.
If the portion of the script posted up is any indication, the movie's really going to blow. Here's why:
Silly Sci-Fi Gear: The script stumbles immediately by calling for everyone on the bridge to be wearing computers. While this may be realistic, its hard to take military guys dressed like McD's employees very seriously. With movies, its really important to project the right image. This can be done -- take the Marines in Aliens for example. They used tech -- IR, trackers, cameras, etc -- but they also used Big Guns, bad-ass body armor and a gung-ho attitude.
Of course, these being naval guys, the best way to make them bad-ass is by making them British (consider the change in the Imperials from Star Wars to Empire). Even the British, however, will look silly with McDonald's headsets on.
Lousy scripting: Woolies? You expect people to be scared of aliens nicknamed "Woolies"? You gotta be kidding; how do you expect people to take a threat named after long underwear seriously? Additionally, a lot of the script reads poorly; just pick a section of lines and try saying them. Finally, they try to establish Mazer as cool the wrong way -- you need a valient charge into the enemy fleet, diving through swarms of lasers and missiles and enemy ships, attacking the Queen's ship in what would otherwise be a suicide mission. Instead, they shoot a missile from around a moon. Right.
Think about The Hunt for Red October. When did Ramius seem like a naval genius? When they said he was a genius? Or when he risked ramming the Neptune Massive and avoided the torpeado through sheer intuition (while the rest of the crew sh*t themselves)?
The training room won't work: Simply, the training room scenes described in the book just won't work on film. Besides the technical challenges, the action will have to be simplified too much to be really meaningful. Its simply a matter of not translating from book to screen (unless we get some brilliant writing to make up for it, which I haven't seen).
Too much attention to detail: This is a toughie. I mean, that moron at the Sci-Fi convention who insists that the X-Wings in Star Wars shouldn't have made noise is correct in that sound doesn't conduct in space. However, there's a *reason* that Lucas had the space fighters make noise: it would have been lousy without it. Experience tells us that explosions and fighters and war make noise. It'll look odd without it, technically correct or not. These are the sorts of concessions you make for a decent film.
The only thing that might save this film is a kick-ass job on the director's part. A good director can make up for a multitude of sins by altering the script or coming up with original ways of showing things. Still, I also doubt that will happen in this case.
I'd hate to see Ender's Game turn into a Wing Commander-quality movie.
Oh, I dunno. I actually think that Woz ended up smelling like roses at the end of The Pirates of Silicon Valley (or maybe it was just that everyone else looked like complete assholes at the end).
I'd be curious about the naive part. It seems to be pretty a fairly common conception that Woz, while being a master tech guru, was rather "babe in the woods" when it came to the business side of the industry. I'd like to know if he actually contributed anything on the business side, or if he was strictly technical.
The question about the portrayals is good, however. The movie pretty much summed up all I've heard about the glory days of Apple. I'd be curious as to the accuracy. If they *are* fairly accurate, I'd be interested to hear why Woz stood by Jobs as long as he did.
What advice can you give the new innovators? As someone who would like to start a company, I can't help but notice that most truly innovative companies tend to boom then bust, either fading slowly into obscurity or being assimilated by some larger company.
Do you have any ideas for avoiding this fate? Is the only alternative to make some money and become a predatory company yourself? Or, alternatively, is this the eventual unavoidable fate of all idea-driven companies (Netscape, SGI, Apple, etc)?
Or, to sum up the question: Can an Apple ever defeat a Microsoft?
I don't know that there's a need for more documentation as there is for more user-friendly docs.
Look at the average man page -- I'd be scared if I were a newbie. Even the HOWTOs are frightening. What we need is the sort of online docs that Microsoft uses -- a "press this. Did this happen?" type of thing to walk through some really basic problems.
I'm treating Y2K like that old Apple ][ game "The Oregon Trail".
As I'm sure many of you have noticed, the best way to play Oregon Trail was to forgo things like food at the start of the game, stocking up on ammo instead. Then, you cut a swath through the wildlife on the way out to Oregon to feed yourself.
I figure any Y2K crisis is pretty much the same thing. Food, spare parts, even Hemos' whiskey are all available to the person with enough ammunition to spare. So, when my apartment has turned onto the Flaming Ciditel of Death and *I* control the greater Great Lakes region (having crushed the pathetic and drunken/. resistance), remember that you heard it here first.
Oh come on, you *have* too see the movie before you can make assumptions like that. Just because Jim Carrey got famous via stupid humor doesn't mean that stupid humor is all he's capable of.
Besides, from the trailers I've seen, Carrey has Andy Kaufman down *perfectly*, right down to that demonic gleam he always had in his eye. I somehow seriously doubt that the script involves Carrey talking via his ass. Anyhow, he was pretty good in the Truman Show (which was, at least, an original movie).
Yeah. Look, maybe you should consider getting some more experience with computers than watching a couple of the 'Lone Gunman' episodes of the X-Files.
Here: I'll win your "Kung Foo" match. I delete the functions which count off damage and replace them with new functions which basically affirm "Health = 250". I compile and run this modified client in my machine.
There. Now I can't be hurt, no matter what incredible feat of programming someone else does. My client isn't capable of subtracting health. Boy, this is fun.
Here's the long and the short of it: Quake could be made secure through more reliance on the server and less on the client, but to do so would destroy the game by slowing the whole process down to an unplayable level.
Carmack's right; the only realistic solution at this time is to keep at least part of the verification module closed-source. Why is this such a problem? Who the hell cares if there's some obscure part of the code you can't get at? Why would this be worth sacrificing decent game play?
Look, if you don't like the closed source stuff, go ahead and play without it and contend with all those Z-bot asswipes who get a kick out of ruining the fun for everyone else. Me, I'll take the closed-source module that Carmack's offering and actually enjoy the game.
It's good to see NASA having success after the loss of those two Mars probes.
Notice how the media's not making a big deal out of this. I suppose you could argue that successes just don't sell as many newspapers as failures. I think, however, that the mass media likes to manufacture issues by hyping up failures like the Mars mission and then making another story out of the public stir they create. Think about it; "NASA Mars Probe Lost" is just one story, but "Second NASA Failure This Year Causes Public Doubt About Future of Space Agency" can be a snowballing event -- shorts, 'talkback' segments, polls, comments from pundits, etc.
After all, when you're on 24 hours a day, you can't be expected to fill the time by just reporting what really happened when, where and why. That'd require too much actual reporting.
Slashdot Mirror
----
----
Then again, that could have something to do with the fact that I bought a mess of AOL stock after that big slide last week.
----
Besides, the whole idea of Linux pressuring MS to improve ought to bring a smile to the face of every consumer on earth -- this is that whole "competition" thing we've been missing throughout most of the 1990's.
----
----
Too bad they didn't get any audio back from that microphone on the thing -- I suspect it would have picked up something along the lines of "Meep Meep!", followed by a high whistling sound and a "poof" on impact...
----
Look at their fsck'ing catalog -- cameras built to look like smoke detectors and wall clocks. Bugs built to hide inside a handset and power themselves from the phone line. "FM Mics" which can be "hidden behind a stamp". These people didn't even pretend that a lot of this gear had legitimate uses!
What shocks me the most is that Slashdotters are supporting the very people who would help employers spy on employees. How much sense does it make to rail against Big Brother and then leap to the defense of his supplier?
Ramsey might have made legal products with legitimate uses, but they also made illegal products to be used for violating people's basic human right to privacy. The feds might have acted like the goon squad (remember, we only have the owner's account), but that's still no excuse for what this company did!
Ask yourself: do you want your employer hiding a camera next to your workstation? Do you want your roommate bugging your phone to see what you say about them? Di you want the competition bugging your water cooler to see what your company is up to?
Do you value your privacy? Ramsey Electronics doesn't.
----
They *did* sell v/a bugs made to look like clocks and smoke alarms. They also made phone bugs, small mics which could be "easily hidden"...
I'm sorry, but I looked at their catalog yesterday, and they're guilty as sin. You arguement is like saying "They shouldn't have taken the opium when they raided that drug lab; it could have been used for making demerol..."
----
Yeah. Confiscating little electronic spy devices built to look like smoke detectors is exactly the same thing as tearing babies in half, forcing slave labor and exterminating people because of their religion. It's the same as tearing apart families, starving people to death and subjecting them to horrifying medical experiments. Taking a few phone bugs as evidence is exactly the same as treating people like roaches.
im sorry, when the law is wrong, it is wrong to enforce the law.
But the law isn't wrong in this case. Maybe you think that devices which allow people to spy on each other ought to be legal, but I know I don't want *my* employer putting a spy camera over my desk. I know I don't want *my* disgruntled roommate bugging my phone. I know I don't want someone putting a hidden camera in the locker room and selling pictures of *my* girlfriend changing. You can't tell me that a camera built to look like a wall clock is for "hobbyists".
Jesus, think before you start railing in support of the very people who would help others rob you of your rights just to make a buck.
----
'You can trust us.': Of course, no good cop would ever want to expose themselves to this sort of liability. Nothing would have been harmed by letting the business verify the gear being confiscated ; I would have refused to sign off on it. What Ramsey should have done was run home and grab a camcorder so he could prove that they tried to get away with this.
'If you don't cooperate with us, we'll shut you down': Again, federal agents acting like thugs. Not acceptible; again, if Ramsey could prove this, it would be another problem for the Feds (gee, I wonder if they bugged their own offices....) This is actually probably the worst offense -- it's a slap in the face to due process.
'[They] asked for a recommendation for a good local restaurant and were on their way': I would have sent them to the local grease-hole; none of the agents would have survived if they'd finished their meals... They'd all be dead of heart failure.
That said, blaming the Feds for raiding this place is like blaming fire for buring down your house after you fell asleep smoking. The devices made here did violate US law -- deviced to bug phones and otherwise spy on people. I'm a bit shocked that the Slashdotters are defending the very people who make the gear to strip away our privacy.
----
While this is a travesty, it is also why companies should always have a couple of backups, and at least one off-site.
For instance, I can see the feds raiding one of my clients, but I can't see them also raiding the President's home computer (which has encrypted data backups sent to it via a dedicated line each night) and a storage locker in the name of the president's wife (which has a locked file cabinet filled with backup tapes).
Remember, kids: The feds aren't omnipotent. If you squirrel away enough backups, they won't be able to grab them all and you can get back into business with a few emergency sub-$1000 computers from Best Buy. The feds almost never look for off-site backups.
Of course, the issue here is that the devices being sold were illegal under US law. If you don't like the law, that's one thing, but criticising law enforcement is like criticising fire for burning down your house after you left those candles burning. I also find it amusing that all the geeks who routinely rail against Big Brother also run to protect the people who make their tools (where do you think corporate security buys their gear?)...
----
----
The problem is, of course, what to do about the problem. Slashdot could revert to an unscored setup, but then the signal to noise ratio would be unbearable.
I've been advocating the implementation of "super moderators" for a while now -- a small group of hand-picked moderators who would act kind of like the Supreme Court of moderation. They could do things like yank Natelie Portman or "line noise" posts, assign points to posts at will, etc. You'd have to find the right people -- people who are both extremely good at handling power and who can step back and make "good" calls about unpopular points of view. It would also have to be closely supervised and reviewed, but I think it'd work.
----
For instance, oftentimes there will be a delay of as must as two days (as with the Uri Geller story) from the time that I see an article on Linux Today or another news site and when I see it here. I've been around /. for a while now, and this wasn't always the case.
Is this just a case of waiting for a "slow news day", or is it something more insideous like ANDN wanting to maintain some editorial control over /.? For that matter, has ANDN imposed any other constraints that we're not aware of? Are there any circumstances where you'd see yourself having to remove libelous posts or posts which violate SEC rules (read here: stock manipulation)? Or has Andover been a benevolant king which is dedicated to protecting the happy-go-lucky days of Slashdot using its deep pockets to keep your legal butts covered?
----
Speed limit enforcement is essentially a cop-out for those hard-to-prove things which, in reality, play a much larger role in causing traffic problems. For instance, tailgating causes more accidents than going 10 MPH over the limit on the interstate, but you almost never hear about someone getting a ticket for tailgating. Why? Because it's hard to prove -- there's no radar, just the officer's word for it.
Here's a list of other traffic infractions which the police should *really* pay attention to:
Reckless Driving: Unfortunately, this means "pissing off the cop" in my town -- the police tack it on when someone ticks them off, not for any particular driving behavior. Still, actual erratic driving causes accidents and should be policed.
Inattentive Driving: This is another one the cops add in when they're pissed. It deserves to be enforced properly, however. I can't count how many times I've seen idiots rooting for CDs or even *reading* while driving. Again, tell me that this isn't as bad as doing 10 MPH over the posted limit. As a special highlight to this, I'd point out that cell phone morons ought to be especially watched for. I mean, studies show that using a cell phone while driving causes as many accidents as OUI, but for some bizarre reason they're not regulated.
Not Signaling: I hate it when people don't use their blinkers. Older drivers (above 40) seem to be especially prone to doing this. As much as I advocate being unpredictable and spontanious in life, I'd suggest not doing so on the interstate.
Going too far under the limit: Just yesterday I was in a 55 zone (yes, I was doing 60) and almost struck a granny who was alternating between 30-35 MPH. I came up over a hill and there she was, practically standing still in her lane. People might *think* they're being safe by going under the limit, but if they go that far under they're actually a much larger hazard.
Old People: I'm not one of those pricks who thinks that drivers licenses should be revoked on your 70th birthday, but I do believe that some older people lose the ability to drive safely as they get older due to medical conditions. There ought to be a graduated system to make the roads safer for the rest of us -- for example, if a person can't pass a night vision test every five years, they ought to be prohibited from driving at night. This doesn't seem cruel and unusual to me; it seems like common sense.
I'm not saying that speed enforcement isn't an element of safety, I'm just saying that it doesn't deserve attention at the expense of other infractions (which are routinely ignored today). If the police and legislators were really interested in protecting drivers from accidents, these are the laws which would be enforced. Simple-minded speed limit enforcement is just a cop-out. Anyone have any additions?
----
What I did say is that the portion of the script I have read will have to be seriously reworked before it will play well on the big screen. I said this for a number of reasons, all of which I tried to explain in my original post. As an insider on the project, I would be interested to hear your replies to these criticisms (for instance, maybe the director has a plan to demonstrate the evolution of strategy in the battle room).
I'm interested in seeing Ender's Game translate well onto the big screen because I've seen other beloved books (Dune stands out in my mind) turn out very badly on the big screen.
----
Silly Sci-Fi Gear: The script stumbles immediately by calling for everyone on the bridge to be wearing computers. While this may be realistic, its hard to take military guys dressed like McD's employees very seriously. With movies, its really important to project the right image. This can be done -- take the Marines in Aliens for example. They used tech -- IR, trackers, cameras, etc -- but they also used Big Guns, bad-ass body armor and a gung-ho attitude.
Of course, these being naval guys, the best way to make them bad-ass is by making them British (consider the change in the Imperials from Star Wars to Empire). Even the British, however, will look silly with McDonald's headsets on.
Lousy scripting: Woolies? You expect people to be scared of aliens nicknamed "Woolies"? You gotta be kidding; how do you expect people to take a threat named after long underwear seriously? Additionally, a lot of the script reads poorly; just pick a section of lines and try saying them. Finally, they try to establish Mazer as cool the wrong way -- you need a valient charge into the enemy fleet, diving through swarms of lasers and missiles and enemy ships, attacking the Queen's ship in what would otherwise be a suicide mission. Instead, they shoot a missile from around a moon. Right.
Think about The Hunt for Red October. When did Ramius seem like a naval genius? When they said he was a genius? Or when he risked ramming the Neptune Massive and avoided the torpeado through sheer intuition (while the rest of the crew sh*t themselves)?
The training room won't work: Simply, the training room scenes described in the book just won't work on film. Besides the technical challenges, the action will have to be simplified too much to be really meaningful. Its simply a matter of not translating from book to screen (unless we get some brilliant writing to make up for it, which I haven't seen).
Too much attention to detail: This is a toughie. I mean, that moron at the Sci-Fi convention who insists that the X-Wings in Star Wars shouldn't have made noise is correct in that sound doesn't conduct in space. However, there's a *reason* that Lucas had the space fighters make noise: it would have been lousy without it. Experience tells us that explosions and fighters and war make noise. It'll look odd without it, technically correct or not. These are the sorts of concessions you make for a decent film.
The only thing that might save this film is a kick-ass job on the director's part. A good director can make up for a multitude of sins by altering the script or coming up with original ways of showing things. Still, I also doubt that will happen in this case.
I'd hate to see Ender's Game turn into a Wing Commander-quality movie.
----
I'd be curious about the naive part. It seems to be pretty a fairly common conception that Woz, while being a master tech guru, was rather "babe in the woods" when it came to the business side of the industry. I'd like to know if he actually contributed anything on the business side, or if he was strictly technical.
The question about the portrayals is good, however. The movie pretty much summed up all I've heard about the glory days of Apple. I'd be curious as to the accuracy. If they *are* fairly accurate, I'd be interested to hear why Woz stood by Jobs as long as he did.
----
What advice can you give the new innovators? As someone who would like to start a company, I can't help but notice that most truly innovative companies tend to boom then bust, either fading slowly into obscurity or being assimilated by some larger company.
Do you have any ideas for avoiding this fate? Is the only alternative to make some money and become a predatory company yourself? Or, alternatively, is this the eventual unavoidable fate of all idea-driven companies (Netscape, SGI, Apple, etc)?
Or, to sum up the question: Can an Apple ever defeat a Microsoft?
----
Look at the average man page -- I'd be scared if I were a newbie. Even the HOWTOs are frightening. What we need is the sort of online docs that Microsoft uses -- a "press this. Did this happen?" type of thing to walk through some really basic problems.
----
As I'm sure many of you have noticed, the best way to play Oregon Trail was to forgo things like food at the start of the game, stocking up on ammo instead. Then, you cut a swath through the wildlife on the way out to Oregon to feed yourself.
I figure any Y2K crisis is pretty much the same thing. Food, spare parts, even Hemos' whiskey are all available to the person with enough ammunition to spare. So, when my apartment has turned onto the Flaming Ciditel of Death and *I* control the greater Great Lakes region (having crushed the pathetic and drunken /. resistance), remember that you heard it here first.
----
Besides, from the trailers I've seen, Carrey has Andy Kaufman down *perfectly*, right down to that demonic gleam he always had in his eye. I somehow seriously doubt that the script involves Carrey talking via his ass. Anyhow, he was pretty good in the Truman Show (which was, at least, an original movie).
----
Here: I'll win your "Kung Foo" match. I delete the functions which count off damage and replace them with new functions which basically affirm "Health = 250". I compile and run this modified client in my machine.
There. Now I can't be hurt, no matter what incredible feat of programming someone else does. My client isn't capable of subtracting health. Boy, this is fun.
----
Carmack's right; the only realistic solution at this time is to keep at least part of the verification module closed-source. Why is this such a problem? Who the hell cares if there's some obscure part of the code you can't get at? Why would this be worth sacrificing decent game play?
Look, if you don't like the closed source stuff, go ahead and play without it and contend with all those Z-bot asswipes who get a kick out of ruining the fun for everyone else. Me, I'll take the closed-source module that Carmack's offering and actually enjoy the game.
----
Notice how the media's not making a big deal out of this. I suppose you could argue that successes just don't sell as many newspapers as failures. I think, however, that the mass media likes to manufacture issues by hyping up failures like the Mars mission and then making another story out of the public stir they create. Think about it; "NASA Mars Probe Lost" is just one story, but "Second NASA Failure This Year Causes Public Doubt About Future of Space Agency" can be a snowballing event -- shorts, 'talkback' segments, polls, comments from pundits, etc.
After all, when you're on 24 hours a day, you can't be expected to fill the time by just reporting what really happened when, where and why. That'd require too much actual reporting.
----