Hmm... though I hate that they'll eventually limit it to Mac, I'm not sure if it's that bad of thing.
I think Apple is more likely to focus the Mac towards 3D/Animation/Compositing productivity than Intel ever will. If they keep Shake updated for the latest/greatest Mac machines, then we may end up with some really optimized software.
The main difference between Mac vs. Intel/MS is that the company that makes the hardware also makes the OS. That's why we see products like the Titanium from Mac, but Intel doesn't really have a counterpart. I would expect that if I bought a Mac version of Shake, it'd work really well on both a Desktop and Laptop Mac.
Apple will likely make a laptop geared for Shake users (or at least tweak their line to keep them in consideration...), and that's not a bad thing.
Who knows, this may turn out to be a bright spot for the movie industry.
"I don't think anyone who knows even a bit about what their talking about can seriously say that linux is anywhere remotely close to windows plug and play.."
I'm glad somebody else said this. Every time I say it I get modded down. Believe it or not, there are things that MS does right. If some people were to look at what MS is doing right and get Linux doing it just as well, then you'll find that Linux is a much stronger Windows contender. \
There's a lot more value to having your computer 'just plain work' than most of the Linux zealots out there realize. Make Linux as easy as Windows for installing drivers and troubleshooting problems, and I just may switch to it.
*realizes this will get modded down, but damn I feel better letting that out.*
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the onus to develop games does not necessarily fall on Microsoft.
Yes, you are wrong. As I stated in my previous post, MS's ability to create a stable market for future systems is based on keeping their existing market share and expanding it. The only way they can do that is games. If the games that were good on the XBOX aren't avaialble *and* better on their following system, there's little incentive to buy the next MS game machine. Why do you think Nintendo is still very strong, but Sega nearly collapsed? If MS doesn't have first party games to populate their system and nobody else's, what's to stop somebody else from coming in and beating them?
"With a geForce3, PIII at seven hundred someodd MHz, and a very large hard drive, the XBox is the most powerful device on the market today"
The truth of the matter is that the XBOX isn't decidedly more powerful than the GameCube. Developers have flat out said that the GC excels in some areas that the XBOX doesn't, and vice versa. You cannot look at a GC game and an XBOX game and know which system it is running on. The XBOX's processor is 700 mhz, and the GC's is 400. Is the XBOX's processor nearly twice as powerful as GC's? No. It's kind of like comparing a Mac processor to an Intel one. The Intel one has faster clock speed, but the Mac can still keep up.
The GC, right now, is $199 and the XBOX is $299. There is not a 50% performance increase on the XBOX even though it's 50% more expensive. The hard drive is a nice feature, but so far it hasn't been used for anything that interesting. Though I may draw criticism for that comment, I see it right now as another thing on the machine that can break. It's a hell of a memory card, though.
"the controllers (the odd shape fits a child's hand much easier than an adult's), "
Okay, first off, DUH it's intended for the younger audience. Secondly, though your comment is basically correct, I as an adult have no troubles with the controller. Personally, I find it more preferable to the XBOX controller. However, this is a matter of taste.
The GC is a very good game machine supported by a very good game company. The XBOX certainly has potential, but it needs games to reach that potential. MS does not have a Miyamoto making games for it. Most of the games on the XBOX today are either fighting or racing games. Where are the fun original games? Like or hate Nintendo style games, they are definitely more inspired. That is why Nintendo can defy the rules of game marketing.
"In the light of this article does anyone see any reason for going with SCSI in a desktop machine? "
I do a lot of work with 3D Rendering and Digital Video, etc. I have tons of high quality footage that needs to be stored. The reason I'm running SCSI is because its' really easy to add new devices. SCSI has enough channels that you can have one card control a bunch of disks. I have 5 SCSI Drives at work and a couple of Firewire for transporting data around to other computers.
At home I have 1 SCSI and 2 IDE hard disks, and now an external Firewire drive. The SCSI drive is my performance capture drive. I have a 14 gigger that's reasonably fast, and an 80 gigger that's slow. The 80 gigger is for archival of the compressed video, or the uncompressed I don't need to get as quickly. Then I have the Firewire 80 gig drive (also slow) that I attach and do backups to occasionally. The drive stays off when it's not in use. I figure it's more reliable that way.:)
I can forsee the day coming before too long where I have only high performance IDE drives and Firewire drives, but no more SCSI.
Because he sounds like an idiot! First off, PVR's time shift. They don't remove commercials in real time. There is value in the first viewing, after that it loses it's value. If I wait two weeks to watch the commercial, a good chunk of them (like sale commercials...) are worthless. At least the show still gets watched, and it'll make the user more likely to watch it the following week.
Secondly, it proves that he's unwilling to adapt his business model to new market conditions. they act like it's a super difficult problem to look at ads, but it's not. It will be though, one day, because they're trying to place an ad everywhere we go! If I were dyslexic, I'd be going nuts in downtown Portland. The problem is eventually going to spread to the point that there'll be more ads for products than there is money to buy them. Think about that for a moment. Ads just won't work that way.
Third, my life is busier. I'm sure it's busier for a lot of people in the last 5 years. I have a shorter attention span. I can watch a show in 22 minutes instead of 30. That's quite a time savings! I can watch 3 shows in an hour! Why not cater to my short attention span needs? What about extra channels? Cable can support what, 125 channels? I'm getting maybe 60 right now. Why not take the Scifi Channel, and then add another Scifi Channel that does nothing but their TV show marathons? If I get bored watching TV, and I know I can find something at least semi interesting on this other channel, I'll head over there sans PVR. Ooops more commercials that way! But it's okay, since it's something I want to watch.
So yes, I'm glad he said this. It illustrates exactly why the Television Industry doesnt need their hand held by the government. With any luck, anybody who listens to him sees it the same way I do. And if they do, the Television Industry will either fall, or they'll revolutionize.
"If that doesn't happen then the advertisers don't get a return on their money. "
Why does that make us thieves? Commercials are annoying, therefore we take steps to remove them. Somebody earlier mentioned that they synchronize commercials so you always catch one when you channel flip. That's part of the reason they're annoying! If I could just switch to another show while it's on, no big deal.
Frankly, there are other methods TV networks could be employing. If they were smart, they'd be doing that instead of calling their customers dirty names. Here's a simple idea: "Mention this ad and you get 50 cents off your next meal at McDonald's." Or "Sometime during the day tomorrow, we're going to request that people call in. Caller 62 will win $62!"
Reward the customer for their time! It's cheaper than making the show more interesting to watch.
When they get bombarded with emails, they'll know that they're under the public eye. If this goes to court, I may be willing to donate a few dollars to assist ith legal fees.
"Unfortunately the only postings/articles I have seen which offer a resolution to online piracy have been limited to ways in which the entertainment industry needs to change its business model."
Personally, I'd take that as a clue that the entertainment industries seeking to push this legislation have a business model that doesn't work anymore. You can't have a market seeking legal action every time their business model no longer works. We'd all still be using typewriters and payphones if it worked that way.
"new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track?"
None. First I want legislation to protect me before I vote for any legislation to stop piracy. (And whan I say piracy, I mean true piracy, the kind that causes harm, not the definition that the RIAA has bastardized in order to explain their lousy sales.)
The reason that the CTPBASPAFP is so awful is that there is all this 'protection' for the handful of corporations trying to get it passed, and none for anybody else. I want legislation that protects my rights so that a corporation cannot impede them. DigitalConsumer.org has the right idea. Establish our rights first. This is absolutely necessary to enact before you can go legislating anti-piracy measures.
Why? Because, for one thing, the MPAA and the RIAA have some extremely broad defintions of what piracy is. They think that burning a song from an MP3 is piracy. It's not. They measure any time they don't force a customer to give them money is piracy. By their defintion of the word, a huge portion of the internet population would have to be punished.
So let's say, hypothetically, that our rights are established exactly as DigitalConsumer stipulates. Now we can start talking about legislation because we know what they law cannot say. It's easier to define what Piracy is at this point and determine a suspect's guilt. Once they do that, then they can investigate individuals or groups who are seeking to distribute their content in a way that causes harm to the normal distribution channel.
Let's say that somebody records an episode of That 70's show, which is available on public broadcast (no cable or satellite required...) and makes it available on the web. Is it piracy? By DigitalConsumer's bill of rights, no. It's space shifting. You can't go after people sharing that show. Does it do harm to the industry? That's debatable. If somebody doesn't watch the show on TV they're missing the commercials that make it money. But wait a minute, that's not piracy. If I missed That 70's Show and f'd up the taping of it, the only other choice I have to watch it is to download it. The studios have a real easy way to get me to watch the commercials for it. Provide it, with commercials, for me to download. Simple. That's why it's not piracy. I'm not relieving their ability to make money off it.
The people's rights are far more important than the corporations'. Protect our rights, and then we'll work with corps in order to keep piracy down. Don't keep piracy down at the expense of our rights.
Hmm... I think I used bad terminology when I made my original post. I should have said 'Copy Restriction" instead of encryption.
What happens when everybody flips the "You can't record this." bit? As far as I'm concerned, that's not a whole lot different from censorship. If you broadcast it, it's fair game. Frankly, I don't think they have any right to say what I can and cannot do when I recieve that signal. If CNN runs a story that causes legal preceedings afterwards, they can too easily protect themselves if nobody can produce a recording to prove they did air it. (weak reasoning I know... )
As for HBO, I don't think I was clear enough there either. I don't really want them flipping that bit either. But if they did, that's an easy enough problem to fix: Cancel your subscription to HBO. That's not so easy with a broadcast station.
Anyway... I apologize for my original post. I didn't spend enough time clarifying my thoughts on it.
It is pretty easy to let somebody know you don't want them to deep link. The easiest but most effective way would be to use a cookie system where if the web page doesn't detect a cookie that's only established by the home page, it redirects you to the home page. Heck, if you were a good web designer, you could even provide a link back to where they were trying to go.
Can people still deep link? Well, with that method, I don't see it happening very easily. Let's say they did, though, so what? If somebody wants something bad enough, they'll obtain it. You're far better off appealing to their good nature. If you ask somebody politely to send them to the home page, they'll comply. If I linked to a site and got an email that read "Could you please direct them to our home page?", I'd likely comply, or at least work out a solution.
Anybody who cries foul when a website is being used the same way every other website in the world is used really doesn't belong on the net.
Hmm.. one thing that kind of bothered me about this interview was that he is in support of protecting television broadcasts. Anybody else see problems with this? I mean, I don't have a problem with HBO doing this. But if I can't record That 70's show, well that just sucks.
Maybe my imagination is a little overactive, but surely these guys would encrypt their shows, forcing me to buy the DVD...
I think what I'm going to do is give IBM another once-over. I'm giving Sony a good hard look too. They have built in Firewire, which would compliment my DV Video Camera quite nicely.
Just wish I could save my self the $300-$500 MS tax.
"Only morons need a laptop to carry around just to help them remember the name of the company they work at or the telephone number of the last Ho they had."
Actually what I want to do is take my porn with me when I travel.:P
... is that you cannot, that I'm aware of, go build your own. I went and did some laptop shopping the other day, and I think it was Gateway that was trying to force Office XP on me. I can't buy an OSless laptop, at least not from a reputable dealer. I can't go buy the components to build a laptop. MS has a monopoly here that the retailers helped create.
Anybody have any tips for me? I have a feeling I'm going to have to pay the MS tax, at least for now. But one of my biggest hopes is that Linux laptops will start to become popular, then the legitimate copy of Win2k that I've bought can just be transferred over, instead of having a brand new license that cost me money.
'How about this, "Futurama sucks" Is that better? '
Not really. When somebody says something 'sucks' but does nothing to back that up... well, frankly you sound like somebody who doesn't have a well formed opinion. In other words, ya saw the show once and never really gave it a chance.
Seeing as how this thread is about saving Futurama, I'd say you're just looking to piss people off, a la flamebait.
Actually, I think turbo was meant to mean 'gun turns really fast and shoots', and laser means 'bad guy red beam'. If it were truely a laser you wouldn't see the beam. Heh.
Hmm.. what I said and what I was thinking was a little different.
What I was thinking when I made the comment about the cubicle dweller is that Dilbert manages to make a comic that hits close to home pretty regularly. If that's not happening with you, then I certainly understand you not liking it. Everybody in my office, though, finds it amusing.
Heh maybe Dilbert's not funny at all, and really it's my company that's funny... scary thought!:)
Both my girlfriend and I disagree with you. As I said, the Bugs Bunny Parody alone was classic. The Afghan children's point of view of us was amusing in a satirical way. (scary if it wasn't trying to be satirical...) And if you paid attention to how Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda were being presented, it was an amusing spoof of what we think people from the Middle East are like. Pay real close attention to what Bin Laden actually says. He doesn't actually say anything, he just uses words we all know. "Ramadan?" Heh.
Err, we've drifted off topic a bit, but I felt the need to reply. (Note: I did turn off the +1 bonus, people have requested that of me in the past.)
The episode had a hilarious (yet disturbing, heh) parody of Bugs Bunny cartoons that niether the Simpsons nor Futurama would ever attempt. I won't describe it here, but if anybody wants to see it, look for "Osama has farty pants" on Kazaa. Heh I'm willing to bet nobody's ever seen a Bugs Bunny parody like that.
Your other complaints (i.e. Chef not singing, reoccurance of played out characters like Saddam, etc...) sadden me. What you're basically saying is "South Park isn't following the formula it established in the first season..." I can understand being disappointed after being hyped about it, but what you're asking for would destroy the show.
Futurama and Simpsons and South Park and.. well... most shows follow a formula like this, but the formula gets old. That's what's starting to happen to Simpsons. Has anybody else noticed that in this latest season Marge has made several references to Homer 'going on an adventure this week'?
That's what's so upsetting about Futurama getting cancelled. Simpsons may outlive it! What will we have when Simpsons is gone if Futurama's not around to take it's place?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... though I hate that they'll eventually limit it to Mac, I'm not sure if it's that bad of thing.
I think Apple is more likely to focus the Mac towards 3D/Animation/Compositing productivity than Intel ever will. If they keep Shake updated for the latest/greatest Mac machines, then we may end up with some really optimized software.
The main difference between Mac vs. Intel/MS is that the company that makes the hardware also makes the OS. That's why we see products like the Titanium from Mac, but Intel doesn't really have a counterpart. I would expect that if I bought a Mac version of Shake, it'd work really well on both a Desktop and Laptop Mac.
Apple will likely make a laptop geared for Shake users (or at least tweak their line to keep them in consideration...), and that's not a bad thing.
Who knows, this may turn out to be a bright spot for the movie industry.
"I don't think anyone who knows even a bit about what their talking about can seriously say that linux is anywhere remotely close to windows plug and play.."
I'm glad somebody else said this. Every time I say it I get modded down. Believe it or not, there are things that MS does right. If some people were to look at what MS is doing right and get Linux doing it just as well, then you'll find that Linux is a much stronger Windows contender. \
There's a lot more value to having your computer 'just plain work' than most of the Linux zealots out there realize. Make Linux as easy as Windows for installing drivers and troubleshooting problems, and I just may switch to it.
*realizes this will get modded down, but damn I feel better letting that out.*
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the onus to develop games does not necessarily fall on Microsoft.
Yes, you are wrong. As I stated in my previous post, MS's ability to create a stable market for future systems is based on keeping their existing market share and expanding it. The only way they can do that is games. If the games that were good on the XBOX aren't avaialble *and* better on their following system, there's little incentive to buy the next MS game machine. Why do you think Nintendo is still very strong, but Sega nearly collapsed? If MS doesn't have first party games to populate their system and nobody else's, what's to stop somebody else from coming in and beating them?
"With a geForce3, PIII at seven hundred someodd MHz, and a very large hard drive, the XBox is the most powerful device on the market today"
The truth of the matter is that the XBOX isn't decidedly more powerful than the GameCube. Developers have flat out said that the GC excels in some areas that the XBOX doesn't, and vice versa. You cannot look at a GC game and an XBOX game and know which system it is running on. The XBOX's processor is 700 mhz, and the GC's is 400. Is the XBOX's processor nearly twice as powerful as GC's? No. It's kind of like comparing a Mac processor to an Intel one. The Intel one has faster clock speed, but the Mac can still keep up.
The GC, right now, is $199 and the XBOX is $299. There is not a 50% performance increase on the XBOX even though it's 50% more expensive. The hard drive is a nice feature, but so far it hasn't been used for anything that interesting. Though I may draw criticism for that comment, I see it right now as another thing on the machine that can break. It's a hell of a memory card, though.
"the controllers (the odd shape fits a child's hand much easier than an adult's), "
Okay, first off, DUH it's intended for the younger audience. Secondly, though your comment is basically correct, I as an adult have no troubles with the controller. Personally, I find it more preferable to the XBOX controller. However, this is a matter of taste.
The GC is a very good game machine supported by a very good game company. The XBOX certainly has potential, but it needs games to reach that potential. MS does not have a Miyamoto making games for it. Most of the games on the XBOX today are either fighting or racing games. Where are the fun original games? Like or hate Nintendo style games, they are definitely more inspired. That is why Nintendo can defy the rules of game marketing.
"In the light of this article does anyone see any reason for going with SCSI in a desktop machine? "
:)
I do a lot of work with 3D Rendering and Digital Video, etc. I have tons of high quality footage that needs to be stored. The reason I'm running SCSI is because its' really easy to add new devices. SCSI has enough channels that you can have one card control a bunch of disks. I have 5 SCSI Drives at work and a couple of Firewire for transporting data around to other computers.
At home I have 1 SCSI and 2 IDE hard disks, and now an external Firewire drive. The SCSI drive is my performance capture drive. I have a 14 gigger that's reasonably fast, and an 80 gigger that's slow. The 80 gigger is for archival of the compressed video, or the uncompressed I don't need to get as quickly. Then I have the Firewire 80 gig drive (also slow) that I attach and do backups to occasionally. The drive stays off when it's not in use. I figure it's more reliable that way.
I can forsee the day coming before too long where I have only high performance IDE drives and Firewire drives, but no more SCSI.
Because he sounds like an idiot! First off, PVR's time shift. They don't remove commercials in real time. There is value in the first viewing, after that it loses it's value. If I wait two weeks to watch the commercial, a good chunk of them (like sale commercials...) are worthless. At least the show still gets watched, and it'll make the user more likely to watch it the following week.
Secondly, it proves that he's unwilling to adapt his business model to new market conditions. they act like it's a super difficult problem to look at ads, but it's not. It will be though, one day, because they're trying to place an ad everywhere we go! If I were dyslexic, I'd be going nuts in downtown Portland. The problem is eventually going to spread to the point that there'll be more ads for products than there is money to buy them. Think about that for a moment. Ads just won't work that way.
Third, my life is busier. I'm sure it's busier for a lot of people in the last 5 years. I have a shorter attention span. I can watch a show in 22 minutes instead of 30. That's quite a time savings! I can watch 3 shows in an hour! Why not cater to my short attention span needs? What about extra channels? Cable can support what, 125 channels? I'm getting maybe 60 right now. Why not take the Scifi Channel, and then add another Scifi Channel that does nothing but their TV show marathons? If I get bored watching TV, and I know I can find something at least semi interesting on this other channel, I'll head over there sans PVR. Ooops more commercials that way! But it's okay, since it's something I want to watch.
So yes, I'm glad he said this. It illustrates exactly why the Television Industry doesnt need their hand held by the government. With any luck, anybody who listens to him sees it the same way I do. And if they do, the Television Industry will either fall, or they'll revolutionize.
"If that doesn't happen then the advertisers don't get a return on their money. "
Why does that make us thieves? Commercials are annoying, therefore we take steps to remove them. Somebody earlier mentioned that they synchronize commercials so you always catch one when you channel flip. That's part of the reason they're annoying! If I could just switch to another show while it's on, no big deal.
Frankly, there are other methods TV networks could be employing. If they were smart, they'd be doing that instead of calling their customers dirty names. Here's a simple idea: "Mention this ad and you get 50 cents off your next meal at McDonald's." Or "Sometime during the day tomorrow, we're going to request that people call in. Caller 62 will win $62!"
Reward the customer for their time! It's cheaper than making the show more interesting to watch.
They have a web form you can fil out here:
AGFA's Web form.
When they get bombarded with emails, they'll know that they're under the public eye. If this goes to court, I may be willing to donate a few dollars to assist ith legal fees.
"Unfortunately the only postings/articles I have seen which offer a resolution to online piracy have been limited to ways in which the entertainment industry needs to change its business model."
Personally, I'd take that as a clue that the entertainment industries seeking to push this legislation have a business model that doesn't work anymore. You can't have a market seeking legal action every time their business model no longer works. We'd all still be using typewriters and payphones if it worked that way.
"new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track?"
None. First I want legislation to protect me before I vote for any legislation to stop piracy. (And whan I say piracy, I mean true piracy, the kind that causes harm, not the definition that the RIAA has bastardized in order to explain their lousy sales.)
The reason that the CTPBASPAFP is so awful is that there is all this 'protection' for the handful of corporations trying to get it passed, and none for anybody else. I want legislation that protects my rights so that a corporation cannot impede them. DigitalConsumer.org has the right idea. Establish our rights first. This is absolutely necessary to enact before you can go legislating anti-piracy measures.
Why? Because, for one thing, the MPAA and the RIAA have some extremely broad defintions of what piracy is. They think that burning a song from an MP3 is piracy. It's not. They measure any time they don't force a customer to give them money is piracy. By their defintion of the word, a huge portion of the internet population would have to be punished.
So let's say, hypothetically, that our rights are established exactly as DigitalConsumer stipulates. Now we can start talking about legislation because we know what they law cannot say. It's easier to define what Piracy is at this point and determine a suspect's guilt. Once they do that, then they can investigate individuals or groups who are seeking to distribute their content in a way that causes harm to the normal distribution channel.
Let's say that somebody records an episode of That 70's show, which is available on public broadcast (no cable or satellite required...) and makes it available on the web. Is it piracy? By DigitalConsumer's bill of rights, no. It's space shifting. You can't go after people sharing that show. Does it do harm to the industry? That's debatable. If somebody doesn't watch the show on TV they're missing the commercials that make it money. But wait a minute, that's not piracy. If I missed That 70's Show and f'd up the taping of it, the only other choice I have to watch it is to download it. The studios have a real easy way to get me to watch the commercials for it. Provide it, with commercials, for me to download. Simple. That's why it's not piracy. I'm not relieving their ability to make money off it.
The people's rights are far more important than the corporations'. Protect our rights, and then we'll work with corps in order to keep piracy down. Don't keep piracy down at the expense of our rights.
What's wrong with cookies?
Hmm... I think I used bad terminology when I made my original post. I should have said 'Copy Restriction" instead of encryption.
What happens when everybody flips the "You can't record this." bit? As far as I'm concerned, that's not a whole lot different from censorship. If you broadcast it, it's fair game. Frankly, I don't think they have any right to say what I can and cannot do when I recieve that signal. If CNN runs a story that causes legal preceedings afterwards, they can too easily protect themselves if nobody can produce a recording to prove they did air it. (weak reasoning I know... )
As for HBO, I don't think I was clear enough there either. I don't really want them flipping that bit either. But if they did, that's an easy enough problem to fix: Cancel your subscription to HBO. That's not so easy with a broadcast station.
Anyway... I apologize for my original post. I didn't spend enough time clarifying my thoughts on it.
Interesting... but can't they establish a policy that I can't buy the system without MS garbage on it?
It is pretty easy to let somebody know you don't want them to deep link. The easiest but most effective way would be to use a cookie system where if the web page doesn't detect a cookie that's only established by the home page, it redirects you to the home page. Heck, if you were a good web designer, you could even provide a link back to where they were trying to go.
Can people still deep link? Well, with that method, I don't see it happening very easily. Let's say they did, though, so what? If somebody wants something bad enough, they'll obtain it. You're far better off appealing to their good nature. If you ask somebody politely to send them to the home page, they'll comply. If I linked to a site and got an email that read "Could you please direct them to our home page?", I'd likely comply, or at least work out a solution.
Anybody who cries foul when a website is being used the same way every other website in the world is used really doesn't belong on the net.
Hmm.. one thing that kind of bothered me about this interview was that he is in support of protecting television broadcasts. Anybody else see problems with this? I mean, I don't have a problem with HBO doing this. But if I can't record That 70's show, well that just sucks.
Maybe my imagination is a little overactive, but surely these guys would encrypt their shows, forcing me to buy the DVD...
Thanks to everybody who replied. :)
I think what I'm going to do is give IBM another once-over. I'm giving Sony a good hard look too. They have built in Firewire, which would compliment my DV Video Camera quite nicely.
Just wish I could save my self the $300-$500 MS tax.
Thanks all!
"Only morons need a laptop to carry around just
:P
to help them remember the name of the company they
work at or the telephone number of the last Ho
they had."
Actually what I want to do is take my porn with me when I travel.
... is that you cannot, that I'm aware of, go build your own. I went and did some laptop shopping the other day, and I think it was Gateway that was trying to force Office XP on me. I can't buy an OSless laptop, at least not from a reputable dealer. I can't go buy the components to build a laptop. MS has a monopoly here that the retailers helped create.
Anybody have any tips for me? I have a feeling I'm going to have to pay the MS tax, at least for now. But one of my biggest hopes is that Linux laptops will start to become popular, then the legitimate copy of Win2k that I've bought can just be transferred over, instead of having a brand new license that cost me money.
'How about this, "Futurama sucks" Is that better? '
Not really. When somebody says something 'sucks' but does nothing to back that up... well, frankly you sound like somebody who doesn't have a well formed opinion. In other words, ya saw the show once and never really gave it a chance.
Seeing as how this thread is about saving Futurama, I'd say you're just looking to piss people off, a la flamebait.
Actually, I think turbo was meant to mean 'gun turns really fast and shoots', and laser means 'bad guy red beam'. If it were truely a laser you wouldn't see the beam. Heh.
"Blasters are not lasers. "
So what is a 'turbo-laser' then? heh
Hmm.. what I said and what I was thinking was a little different.
:)
What I was thinking when I made the comment about the cubicle dweller is that Dilbert manages to make a comic that hits close to home pretty regularly. If that's not happening with you, then I certainly understand you not liking it. Everybody in my office, though, finds it amusing.
Heh maybe Dilbert's not funny at all, and really it's my company that's funny... scary thought!
"It was entirely unfunny, worthless...
Both my girlfriend and I disagree with you. As I said, the Bugs Bunny Parody alone was classic. The Afghan children's point of view of us was amusing in a satirical way. (scary if it wasn't trying to be satirical...) And if you paid attention to how Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda were being presented, it was an amusing spoof of what we think people from the Middle East are like. Pay real close attention to what Bin Laden actually says. He doesn't actually say anything, he just uses words we all know. "Ramadan?" Heh.
... I mean, look at how Star Wars portrays 'laser blasts' and the speed of light!
"Before you have a go at someone else's grammar make sure you can construct a meaningful sentence yourself."
Ah, the mods agree with me. You may bite my shiny metal ass when ready. >:)
Err, we've drifted off topic a bit, but I felt the need to reply. (Note: I did turn off the +1 bonus, people have requested that of me in the past.)
The episode had a hilarious (yet disturbing, heh) parody of Bugs Bunny cartoons that niether the Simpsons nor Futurama would ever attempt. I won't describe it here, but if anybody wants to see it, look for "Osama has farty pants" on Kazaa. Heh I'm willing to bet nobody's ever seen a Bugs Bunny parody like that.
Your other complaints (i.e. Chef not singing, reoccurance of played out characters like Saddam, etc...) sadden me. What you're basically saying is "South Park isn't following the formula it established in the first season..." I can understand being disappointed after being hyped about it, but what you're asking for would destroy the show.
Futurama and Simpsons and South Park and.. well... most shows follow a formula like this, but the formula gets old. That's what's starting to happen to Simpsons. Has anybody else noticed that in this latest season Marge has made several references to Homer 'going on an adventure this week'?
That's what's so upsetting about Futurama getting cancelled. Simpsons may outlive it! What will we have when Simpsons is gone if Futurama's not around to take it's place?