Nothing noteworthy, I just made boxes for friends in the late 70's/early 80's. Ready-built modems were rare and expensive, parts were relatively cheap and plentiful, so I did what any nerdy kid with a soldering iron would for a bit of extra money. We're talking 200/300 baud with no internal compression, so it wasn't rocket surgery.
True, those things were said, but the technologies you mention "took" the first time they were tried, and became the new standard because they added to the movie-going experience without being unnatural or obtrusive. 3D has been tried numerous times already, but never been more than a curiosity.
Of course, Hollywood might have learned from history...
I don't have any geographic illustration, but I think trying to reduce the process to a list of maps is not feasible.
You mean to tell me absolutely nobody has a clear idea of what territories have been controlled by Palestinian and Israeli over time? I find that extremely hard to believe, since the UN devotes so much time to the dispute, mostly censuring Israel in the process.
And on that, I should point out that the Wikipedia article you linked to isn't particularly flattering; while it proves the flaws in the illustration, it confirms that Israel has expanded well beyond it's original UN sanctioned bounds (and annexed territories officially recognised as parts of other sovereign nations). I would submit that the reason no countering illustration is available is not due to information, but because any realistic representation would still be embarrassing to Israel.
Only if you advocate use of force as a means of achieving it. Advocating it via legislative process is perfectly legal, and in fact Australia had a referendum on the matter in 1999 (the process was gamed by a monarchist prime minister, so we ended up with a proposed government model so odious not even the hard core republic supporters wanted to touch it).
The odd part about the monarchy in Australia is that the Queen is basically a rubber stamp, the duties are actually performed by the Governor General. There's an excellent article about this and the implications of an Australian republic here if you're interested.
No, the "something" and consequences are quite specific, and it's not just Mrs Betty Windsor (if it helps, she doesn't like being called that, but I'm in no danger of being arrested for just typing it). The shortest summary I can think of is five words, or three and a number.
You're technically correct, the best kind of correct.
A sci-fi show that achieves cult status can indeed be hugely profitable, and that alone makes it worth trying occasionally. But Catch 22 usually rears it's head: supposedly sci-fi isn't profitable, so they don't invest enough to make it good, which means nobody watches, so it isn't profitable, so we get the homoerotic melodrama of wrestling instead (seriously, sweaty, oiled up men in tight pants grabbing each other while reading a bad script? Sorry, but without the pants that'd be gay porn. Of course, Star Trek without pants would be...hmm, 7 of 9 wore a one-piece outfit...pretty awesome, actually ^_^)
Apologies for my imprecision. What I meant was if you can't reliably predict the delivery of programs to the station, they can't devise a program schedule and so can't effectively sell the advertising space. That end of the business is usually worked out months before programs go to air, even if the programs themselves haven't been made yet; the critical thing is that the producers can deliver on time and on budget, and the point I was making was sci-fi is challenging (masterful understatement) on both those criteria. Good, quick, cheap, choose any two as they say.
Adult Swim as a subdivision of Cartoon Network reverses the rules of most channels using the cartoon economics I described (that is, evening isn't their most profitable time slot). As long as an evening cartoon rates higher than reruns of The Flintstones they're doing OK. What's more if, say, season 5 of The Venture Bros isn't delivered on time (Doc Hammer gets assassinated by gay Klansmen ninjas riding giant spiders or something), they have cult shows like The Dark Knight to fall back on without losing the advertisers, so they can afford to take more risks than most channels. So you're correct, Adult Swim does operate differently, but for reasons other channels can't emulate.
Nowhere did I say I like the status quo, I was merely explaining how it is and why sci-fi doesn't get made.
So were stuck with A-Team and Daisy Duke remakes?
Yes, they give the best ROI because they benefit from nostalgia and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Sci-fi that goes for the lowest common denominator invariably sucks, and since the people who go to see The A-Team generally aren't sci-fi fans it loses out both ways and reinforces the idea that it's a bad investment. How many variations on this theme do I need to write before you get it?
Yes, I understand that its hard (thats why you make the big bucks right?)
Working in television doesn't mean I make particularly big bucks, and that's the kind of cheap shot ignoramuses mistake for cleverness. As much as I'd like to I can't afford to fund sci-fi programs myself, mortgaging my house would pay for about two thirds of an episode of Firefly.
but its pretty universally known that TV, radio, movies, and music have sucked for the past decade
You sound like the Moral Majority (which is only subjectively moral and definitely not a majority). That's just an opinion, and it's not an opinion shared by a reasonably large percentage of the population, obviously, otherwise things would be different (and I'd be happily producing Stainless Steel Rat movies true to Harry Harrison's writing). If there was really no market for the crap on TV and radio it wouldn't be there, your failure to understand this basic fact and assumption that everyone shares your tastes (or media executives have mysterious mind control powers that can make all but an elite few consume what they really don't want to) illustrates that you're not just divorced from reality, it's about to sue you for half your income and custody of your children. 50% of the population is below average intelligence; this would appear to include you.
Just responding in kind; if you prefer a reasonable, intelligent response then be reasonable and intelligent when you post.
You're absolutely right: the BBC has six week seasons and a miniseries can be as short as two or three episodes, but they plan it that way (so really I should have said "unpredictably"). I'm not quite sure why they do that, it's hampered sales of BBC programs in other countries for years since 13 week blocs are standard just about everywhere else, but that probably doesn't matter since they're largely funded by the TV license system.
I have to give the Beeb credit though; they (almost) never let a program get tired and stale, and leave you wanting more, not regretting you tuned in as long as you did.
BTW, if you haven't seen it, I'd recommend the original series of Edge Of Darkness. Don't let the remake put you off, Bob Peck was a way better Craven than Mel Gibson.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing noteworthy, I just made boxes for friends in the late 70's/early 80's. Ready-built modems were rare and expensive, parts were relatively cheap and plentiful, so I did what any nerdy kid with a soldering iron would for a bit of extra money. We're talking 200/300 baud with no internal compression, so it wasn't rocket surgery.
Yes. POTS!=internet.
And some of us built modems. Ah, fun times...
Where is he going to go brag afterwards? It's a self-defeating endeavor.
Hey, some of us still have cradle modems and BBS software...
what sort of electric field would having a set of headphones on generate?
According to my observations, the sort that damps neural activity.
Cmon /. you can do better.
[citation needed]
True, those things were said, but the technologies you mention "took" the first time they were tried, and became the new standard because they added to the movie-going experience without being unnatural or obtrusive. 3D has been tried numerous times already, but never been more than a curiosity.
Of course, Hollywood might have learned from history...
Way to go ADUC.
They might not get very far, but I will cheer them on.
Well, if it walks like ADUC...
I don't have any geographic illustration, but I think trying to reduce the process to a list of maps is not feasible.
You mean to tell me absolutely nobody has a clear idea of what territories have been controlled by Palestinian and Israeli over time? I find that extremely hard to believe, since the UN devotes so much time to the dispute, mostly censuring Israel in the process.
And on that, I should point out that the Wikipedia article you linked to isn't particularly flattering; while it proves the flaws in the illustration, it confirms that Israel has expanded well beyond it's original UN sanctioned bounds (and annexed territories officially recognised as parts of other sovereign nations). I would submit that the reason no countering illustration is available is not due to information, but because any realistic representation would still be embarrassing to Israel.
I have no particular sympathy for either side; if you can provide a better geographic illustration, please do.
Done :)
Do you mean Israel's right to exist or Palestine's right to exist?
(Dreadful source, but the map is accurate)
Would it not be better to have the greedy bastards working for us rather than against us?
As fertilizer, definitely.
Well, first you register everybody and then you send them an invoice for their membership fees
Not legal in Australia.
Because a sane intellectual account would have been inappropriate.
Well, imagine he was a car...
Private communications with minor children.
I hope they're not D minor children, they're the saddest of all.
Only if you advocate use of force as a means of achieving it. Advocating it via legislative process is perfectly legal, and in fact Australia had a referendum on the matter in 1999 (the process was gamed by a monarchist prime minister, so we ended up with a proposed government model so odious not even the hard core republic supporters wanted to touch it).
The odd part about the monarchy in Australia is that the Queen is basically a rubber stamp, the duties are actually performed by the Governor General. There's an excellent article about this and the implications of an Australian republic here if you're interested.
No, the "something" and consequences are quite specific, and it's not just Mrs Betty Windsor (if it helps, she doesn't like being called that, but I'm in no danger of being arrested for just typing it). The shortest summary I can think of is five words, or three and a number.
...when you feel the need to interject information twice with commas it gets confusing.
This one sentence will make your head explode.
You're technically correct, the best kind of correct.
A sci-fi show that achieves cult status can indeed be hugely profitable, and that alone makes it worth trying occasionally. But Catch 22 usually rears it's head: supposedly sci-fi isn't profitable, so they don't invest enough to make it good, which means nobody watches, so it isn't profitable, so we get the homoerotic melodrama
of wrestling instead (seriously, sweaty, oiled up men in tight pants grabbing each other while reading a bad script? Sorry, but without the pants that'd be gay porn. Of course, Star Trek without pants would be...hmm, 7 of 9 wore a one-piece outfit...pretty awesome, actually ^_^)
Well, I did say "(almost)"; IMO the original run of Dr Who lasted roughly a Sylvester McCoy too long :)
Apologies for my imprecision. What I meant was if you can't reliably predict the delivery of programs to the station, they can't devise a program schedule and so can't effectively sell the advertising space. That end of the business is usually worked out months before programs go to air, even if the programs themselves haven't been made yet; the critical thing is that the producers can deliver on time and on budget, and the point I was making was sci-fi is challenging (masterful understatement) on both those criteria. Good, quick, cheap, choose any two as they say.
Adult Swim as a subdivision of Cartoon Network reverses the rules of most channels using the cartoon economics I described (that is, evening isn't their most profitable time slot). As long as an evening cartoon rates higher than reruns of The Flintstones they're doing OK. What's more if, say, season 5 of The Venture Bros isn't delivered on time (Doc Hammer gets assassinated by gay Klansmen ninjas riding giant spiders or something), they have cult shows like The Dark Knight to fall back on without losing the advertisers, so they can afford to take more risks than most channels. So you're correct, Adult Swim does operate differently, but for reasons other channels can't emulate.
Nowhere did I say I like the status quo, I was merely explaining how it is and why sci-fi doesn't get made.
So were stuck with A-Team and Daisy Duke remakes?
Yes, they give the best ROI because they benefit from nostalgia and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Sci-fi that goes for the lowest common denominator invariably sucks, and since the people who go to see The A-Team generally aren't sci-fi fans it loses out both ways and reinforces the idea that it's a bad investment. How many variations on this theme do I need to write before you get it?
Yes, I understand that its hard (thats why you make the big bucks right?)
Working in television doesn't mean I make particularly big bucks, and that's the kind of cheap shot ignoramuses mistake for cleverness. As much as I'd like to I can't afford to fund sci-fi programs myself, mortgaging my house would pay for about two thirds of an episode of Firefly.
but its pretty universally known that TV, radio, movies, and music have sucked for the past decade
You sound like the Moral Majority (which is only subjectively moral and definitely not a majority). That's just an opinion, and it's not an opinion shared by a reasonably large percentage of the population, obviously, otherwise things would be different (and I'd be happily producing Stainless Steel Rat movies true to Harry Harrison's writing). If there was really no market for the crap on TV and radio it wouldn't be there, your failure to understand this basic fact and assumption that everyone shares your tastes (or media executives have mysterious mind control powers that can make all but an elite few consume what they really don't want to) illustrates that you're not just divorced from reality, it's about to sue you for half your income and custody of your children. 50% of the population is below average intelligence; this would appear to include you.
Just responding in kind; if you prefer a reasonable, intelligent response then be reasonable and intelligent when you post.
You're absolutely right: the BBC has six week seasons and a miniseries can be as short as two or three episodes, but they plan it that way (so really I should have said "unpredictably"). I'm not quite sure why they do that, it's hampered sales of BBC programs in other countries for years since 13 week blocs are standard just about everywhere else, but that probably doesn't matter since they're largely funded by the TV license system.
I have to give the Beeb credit though; they (almost) never let a program get tired and stale, and leave you wanting more, not regretting you tuned in as long as you did.
BTW, if you haven't seen it, I'd recommend the original series of Edge Of Darkness. Don't let the remake put you off, Bob Peck was a way better Craven than Mel Gibson.