What I think is possible is that the industry is moving past the idea of "open computing". What I mean by that is that boxes like the xbox360 will be the appliances that people use to check their email and to send/receive IMs, VOIP, etc. The idea of an operating system won't matter to the user, any more than it matters what software the plane you're in is running. Even pilots aren't too familiar with avionics, and it doesn't matter - as long as it works. Once the public has been conditioned to accept computing as this pervasive background thing, then DRM will establish a firm foothold and it becomes difficult for file trading because most won't know enough and won't care enough to mod/change their boxes (which may stop working if you try) in order to manipulate their software in order to trade files.
It all has to to with what generations grow up with. My nephew is 9 - and to him the internet is AOL. His mom is a member, and to him, the web is a place to check his email, play games, and find out information about more games. He knows of this thing called google - you ask it a question, and it gives you answers, but he doesn't like it too much because he feels like it doesn't answer them "right" most of the time. He already has preferred channels for getting his information. X-Play on G4 shapes his gaming opinions ("dude, how can you like that game? it only got 2 out of 5 on x-play!") - and the internet isn't this wide open place for him - but an aggregation of things his already likes to do at places he trusts and knows.
What frustrates him about the internet: Maybe like two years ago, I was babysitting, and we were watching the Discovery channel on rare spiders. He was so interested that he wanted to find out more. I suggested the internet. At the time (lol) whenever he wanted to find something out, he rationalized that the answer would be at www.nameofthatthing.com - in this case www.spider.com. So he typed that in... and suffice it to say, what he got had little to do with spiders.
It was a goth porn site. The main page was some chick with her tits out, nothing more than he'd seen on national geographic, but it made him really mad for some reason. He was like, "spider.com should be about spiders!" All of which is to say, to him the internet isn't ordered the way it should be. And I don't think that sentiment is totally incorrect. I think that the media congloms are slowly moving towards ordering it that way.
I hypothesize that the internet will become more ordered - less transparent - and places like blogs and message boards will be some of the few places average citizens will get to post... and registrations will be scrutinized and traffic will be analyzed... and the status quo will normalize. In this reality, file trading abates because the critical mass audience will be conditioned to accept the status quo - which is the internet as a background datastream - a stream that provides the water coming from your faucet but a stream that you don't DRINK FROM directly. Drink from the faucet - not from the stream. Disagree? Look at AOL commercials with its propaganda. (The internet is a dangerous place. We PROTECT YOU and your children and your money and your life.)
Unfortunately, I think the RIAA has the right idea - scare the kids with fear of litigation - (my nephew wanted the Rock Lobster clip from Family guy - I downloaded the torrent - and we laughed about it for like two hours until my sister made us delete it because she didn't want to get sued - my nephew has now internalized that meme - downloads are like shoplifting to him - which is to say wrong).
Don't get me wrong, I in no way support this. This is what I think is happening though.
... but i'd rather wireless and internet support on the subway. i'd pay for it - but a free text-based ad system would work. and it's a captive audience.
how is it that microsoft is "walmarting" it and google isn't? Your cultural bias is obfuscating your critical faculties.
In fact, not only is google walmarting it, they are going to get people like you to improve it for free (potentially devaluing your own skillset, if you happen to code) all out of some ill-guided cultural devotion. In other words, google is artificially extending their workforce to their advantage for free in this open-ended, cool something that you envision.
Then they'll release a beta for years on end to absolve themselves of responsibility in the event of a subpar product (google talk anyone?) and let the stock run-up continue.
You're remarkably emotional for a nerd. And, as judged by your modding, you have friends.
providing medical care places third worlders in a subordinate position, forever dependant on first world benevolence, or worse, disguised self-interest. Also, providing meds is bullshit because they have to workaround patent laws. Brazil announced that they would violate american patent law to produce AIDS meds and the US threatened sanctions, but allowed pharm cos. to offer the drugs at costs still too high for the Brazilian government to subsidize by and large. What the fuck!!?!?! Don't give them drugs - give them temporary patent reprieve and let them make their own.
Giving them information allows them to develop their own stuff... way of life... cultural systems.
so it isn't more useful to give them some pills. It's way more useful to give them the means to make their own.
This will be infrastructure intensive: computers and connections and education. Education and information self-empowers people.
also... from another standpoint.... projects like this can actually help the US economy (if the books can be sold to governments for a profit or for controlling interest in natural resources going forward, etc.) whereas giving meds is terminator thinking. Give meds and then what?
However flawed this project might be - it's smart people taking risks and thinking progressively. I'll always applaud that.
Wrong. I didn't imply that it wasn't a skill at all.
What I implied is that young retirees do have this skill, or are far more likely to have it. They've taught subordinates; they've taught children and possibly grandchildren. I further imply, with all things being equal, that young retirees are far more likely to possess this skill than recent graduates by virtue of life experience and professional experience alone. And, I reiterate, recruiting young retirees doesn't require additional budget layouts to the educational system. It allows the system to drastically increase the quality of its teaching core, quickly, at nominal cost increase. This is an amenable solution. In fact, I also reiterate, there is such a pilot program here in NYC, and it has enjoyed some success.
Again, you misintepreted. I merely assumed constant wages and looked at ways to improve the teaching core given such. In my mind, drastic pay raises for teachers across the board is unreasonable and not necessarily a solution to the problem at hand.
It also slows reaction time, reflexes, and impairs visual and audio perception. In addition, it causes pulmonary inflammation. In short, it doesn't confer physical advantage - it is a detriment, both in the short term and long to athletes. The psychological advantage is difficult to measure; athletes often perform poorly after marijuana usage, and as thus it does not meet the typical criteria for performance enhancement. There are some athletes who seem to do as well with it, so data is contradictory and incomplete.
I assumed you were aware of the well known side effects. Clearly a poor assumption on my part, I agree. And it isn't MY LOGIC as you put it, but the logic of my teammates that used it to advantage, and the flowed logic of the Olympic committee that bans weed but not things like green tea extract, which convey far greater indisputable performance advantages.
So I made two incorrect assumptions: first was to assume that you'd bring prior knowledge and reasoning skills, and second that you had reading comprehension skills. In that regard you are correct. You got me dude, I shouldn't have assumed those things. I'll work on it, I promise.
Oh, and the insecure nitpicking and poring over details that have little to do with the point of the whole post is a quality skillset. I'm sure you're the life of the party.
Not to mention that you're the third person to nitpick over that same detail, but the only one to post as AC. Character defects aplenty, I'd say.
agreed. Movie critics who did not go to film school, et al.
I have a similar problem with teachers. New teachers are usually in my age range, and don't have much real world experience, are probably not mature enough to teach, et al. But they teach because they were in the lower range of their graduating class with generic degrees and as thus are willing to take meager salaries (this is my general experience with my friends who teach; no offense to those of you who teach on/., are competent, and love it). My solution: so many people are retiring younger and healthier than ever before. These people should teach. They've already led successful lives, have loads of life experience and thus have loads of things to teach that aren't in textbooks. More importantly, they have nest eggs so the meager salary isn't an issue to them because they're secure financially. They can afford to do it and are the most suited to do it. It's actually a program here in NY - where the school system is actively recruiting young retirees. This way you dramatically increase the quality of the school system with marginal cost increases.
My experience is that many of my friends in journalism are similar. They face similar issues: meager salaries, low barriers to entry, etc. I propose a similar solution - young retirees move into the journalism space. They've worked in the industry - have decades of perspective. With telecommuting what it is - they can perpetually report from the field... which would be where they choose to retire, etc. They can take the meager salaries because they have nest eggs, etc.
The secondary issue is that modern journalism is vertically integrated with political agendas in large politically vested corporations. I can imagine that the general public often feels hoodwinked and manipulated by the media - coerced into groupthink. That mistrust and the ease with which a motivated individual can self publish will continue a dramatic shift in the power dynamic. There will no longer be a monopoly on information (unless you're google).
The only time I pick up a paper is because an enterprising drug dealer disguises ads for pot in the classified section of the village voice. And they deliver.
It also slows reaction time, reflexes, and impairs visual and audio perception. In addition, it causes pulmonary inflammation. In short, it doesn't confer physical advantage - it is a detriment, both in the short term and long to athletes. The psychological advantage is difficult to measure; athletes often perform poorly after marijuana usage, and as thus it does not meet the typical criteria for performance enhancement. There are some athletes who seem to do as well with it, so data is contradictory and incomplete.
green tea extract is a strong anxiolytic and performance enhancer and increases the rate of muscle lipid oxidation. It has none of the detriments, yet it is not banned.
I don't necessarily think its typical extrovert thinking at all.
I'm rather introverted, and for me it goes like this. Most of the time when I'm thinking about something I have an internal conversation with one of three distinct voices in my head. They often come to different conclusions. I mediate and come to a consensus. the short of this is that it's a lot of fucking talking going on in my head.
The other thing is that I tend to be obtuse - in social situations and be very analytical in public. This causes problems.... many people dont like to interact with someone they perceive might be smarter than they - it causes them to feel insecure. Also, many people tend to base their whole worldview on their opinions. So in what I might perceive as casual conversation ends up altering someone's world view unnecessarily... this tends to create uncomfortable conditions.
One or two drinks for me does the exact thing poster mentioned. When I drink... the other voices are quiet. They don't speak, and it's a very serene vacation from the pinball match that is my psyche. It also allows me to focus intently on more pertinent and prudent pursuits: getting laid. And getting laid is about listening and being what that chick wants right at that time.
Interestingly enough - an analogy. Marijuana is banned by the Olympic committee, even though it doesn't really give athletes an advantage. I ran track - and knew some athletes who smoked weed before meets. The reason: it takes the edge off. Being nervous and jumpy throws their rhythm off; and rhythm is everything when wins and losses are measured in the blink of an eye.
Alcohol works like that for me in a social environment. I usually get something mild or watered down - or get something strong and nurse it. Athletes call it being too keyed-up; I can imagine the equivalent exists for those who have strong cognitive faculties.
And while like you, I enjoy doing my own thing for the most part; I far more enjoy getting laid on a regular basis. You have to join the world to do this.
I like using windows. Right now I have 3 XP boxes and 2 XP notebooks on my home network. I have auto-update on all of my machines so they remain patched. I run adware/spyware utilities on my machines, anti-virus, and use firefox. none of my machines crash - I don't have spyware/adware issues, my network works well and is secure.
everything is dirt cheap; microsoft products integrate seamlessly (my outlook to my pocket pc to spreadsheets to my cell phone, etc; my network was simple to set up and configure) - and I don't have to learn how to do anything. I work in the film industry and am shooting an independent film on my own dime and time - and my XP network does everything I need it to and well... and at cost. Not to mention that in the Wintel world - instead of a couple of solutions to any given problem, I probably have hundreds of options, allowing me to choose the best tool for the project/problem at hand.
I am not emotional about my tools. I don't care how they work. I want them to work cheaply and efficiently. I want lots of solutions and choice, which keeps costs down.
I've used Macs - everyone in the industry uses them. I don't like them as much as I like using windows and I cannot justify the higher prices in general for their hardware. The supposed benefits of security and stability are valuable, but I get these same benefits on my XP machines at lower cost.
It is still the case. For reference, look at the performance of harry potter - 200 million in 10 days. i saw the film; thought it was mediocre at best (i confess that I don't find harry potter in any way appealing as far as storytelling goes) - but tickets are moving.
i don't think that hollywood's recent troubles have as much to do with quality as it had to do with two other modalities this year: energy prices, and poor marketing.
hollywood is efficient at marketing along old school channels - carpetbombing television, radio, billboards etc. they suck at internet marketing and our television tools aren't efficient enough to locate the desired audiences. So Hollywood hasn't the slightest what people are watching... so it's tough to advertise to them.
2nd, US is a commuter economy. Less people driving always depresses the economy across the board. movies are no different - not gonna fill up the jalopy for the 40 mile trek to the multiplex when my fuel prices have doubled.
don't confuse this as my support of the existing model. hollywood follows it because it works. Combine the aforementioned with sequelitis (I count remakes of television shows in this regard) and you get some market recession.
finally, last year was the year of passion of the christ. that film grossed more than $500 million - and was an independent film... completely off the hollywood radar. that's a once in a lifetime event - and cannot be duplicated. the industry is probably spot on with last year once the aforementioned are taken into account... or pretty close to it.
I work in the industry, and the quandary they face is an interesting one. Smarter people shout the loudest, complaining on the grid about what they like and don't like, but their dollars aren't as compelling. The critical maqss audience is pavlovian - market a blockbuster in a familiar way with the familiar effects, etc... and that audience is there.
Do they listen to the geeks who speak with their high speed internet connections? Or to the less than geeky, who speak with their cash. Hollywood has made its choice.
Actually, infrequently, Hollywood appeals to the geeks and smarter folk by making smarter movies - more varied an intelligent (if flawed, movies). The audience responds by not seeing them at all.
The downside of the popular formula culture is that entire generations are otherwise unaware of anything existing otherwise, further reducing the chance of new and novel shit getting done by the institutions of Hollywood.
Dude, they do those sets for marketing purposes. Children are flooded with toys designed for the impulse buy... expertly tied into the latest kids movie or DVD and/or kids radio, etc. Lego can't compete on those terms... so they do cross-marketing to grow the audience and grab some mindshare. The kids who have a natural affinity for legos latch on - the others move on after the impulse buy.
Our economy is such that, in general... it's the impulse buyers that keep makers of consumer products afloat rather than the loyal customer.
Ny nephew is an atypical child, but he latched on to legos early, and now, at nine... he's expanded the size of his set tenfold and builds huge and complex constructs regularly. The reason he fell into it is because I was a huge lego guy as a kid and passed the love on to him. We often build things together - he sends me pix and we consult on design.
Interestingly enough, many companies are having problems with keeping mindshare for the same reason. For example, the sports leagues (baseball, football, etc.) are facing an increasingly older demographic, as these generations have failed to instill their love for the sport in their kids and grandkids. The NFL speculates that 90% of their fans pick up the sport from a father or father figure. The implosion of the nuclear family and the lack of permanent father figures mean that generations of boys don't have an instilled passion for baseball or football... or whatever. Venture onto a kids channel during daytime hours and you'll be bombarded with NFL for kids and/or NBA for kids commercials et al.
I think legos suffer from a similar problem. they are great toys that a child for the most part needs to be introduced to. Modern day toys are things that are designed to babysit kids for parents, as opposed to involving them and engaging them together. And that's if kids are playing with toys at all. The only toys my nephew has are legos. Other than that, he's a gamer. His friends are no different, except that they don't even like legos. They play games and ride bikes.
This dude I knew once bought an old pocket watch at an estate sale. After a few tokes, while playing splinter cell co-op, he tells me that he's gonna keep the watch in his family... start a tradition. I laughed uproariously; it was the funniest thing I'd heard ever. I understand his sentiment though... now anyway. Part and parcel of a quickly evolving popular culture is a resetting of the mindset, like goldfish....
I know I've gotten completely off-topic... but it's ironic that the very companies that seek to destroy that which is good in man for profit are the very same companies we work for.
I went to a catholic school too. They too taught evolution. Genesis was pitched to us as a metaphor.
interestingly enough, much of religious fervor came from the women. The sisters and nuns were more fundamental and had more literal interpretations of scripture. The brothers/priests/etc. tended to accept that Catholicism was more a paradigm for a way of living as opposed to an exact accounting. One priest even told us that he thought that the Jesus story was highly inaccurate, and sincerely doubted that the ressurection occured. We looked at him, dumbfounded, and he continued as if he'd never said it.
I stopped believing in God when I was ten. It scared me: I went to my math teacher at the time, a really nice guy named Mr. Bain. I told him I'd stopped believing in God. He told me that he didn't really believe in God either, but that he occasionally played both sides of the fence in case God was really this angry spiteful uberbeing. Coolest teacher ever. He also told me not to tell the nuns and to pray and stuff like everything was normal.
The point of this post is to say: Religious institutions are hindered by the lowest common denominators in their populations, much like any other group. Those who refuse to let go of antiquated notions hold up the entire institution. In my experience, it was the nuns at Holy Name of Jesus; in the case of religion in general, it's the fundamentalists and hardliners.
Is there virtue in religion? Yes. Many people would not be able to justify a life outside of a religious context. This is not good. Those of us who are comfortable outside of that context shouldn't necessarily try to undermine the entire lives of those who are not. I don't think it's constructive.
As to PS3 not having an online service, how do you know that? Has Sony said? Personally, I think that PS3 will have good online play, even if it doesn't have an online service. PS2's online play has gone from awful to decent, and there's no reason to think it won't get even better with PS3.
They don't have an online system now. So what that means is that their online system is at best a year away.
they really missed the boat with that. XBox Live is awesome.
Re: Immersion: I speak not of graphics per se. PS2 games sometimes feel limited by the hardware. I don't feel this playing Xbox games. The Xbox limitation is its library.
Immersion!=Realism. XBox games tend to feel more immersive to me. That said, MSFT lacks library variety.
My friends and I all begrudgingly admit that the respecitve consoles have strengths and weaknesses. XBox can't afford any weaknesses as it has an uphill fight in terms of market share.
31 is the average age of the gamer market. You are spot on.
I never played the dreamcast, but I'm of the Playstation generation... and I like the X-Box because of the immersive quality of its games.
I'm a toking gamer - so there's a huge difference between walking into an empty room and skulking into a brilliantly shaded, lit room with curtains wafting in a breeze that I can hide behind in Splinter Cell. Immersion is important to me. X-Box games feel more complete.
By contrast, the PS2 has an awesome variety of games; the library is a compelling reason to own one. Among my friends, I'm the X-Box guy; they all have PS2s, so it works out well.
My experience as a gamer revolves around immersion and variety. The X-Box suffers from a lack of variety; the PS2 is not immersive. The PS2 is akin to watching VHS; whereas the X-Box is more of a DVD experience.
If the PS3 can promise immersion and variety, then I'm there. It'll be an easy call. I'm already going to get an XBox 360 because PS3 missed the boat by not having an online service.
Slashdot Mirror
What I think is possible is that the industry is moving past the idea of "open computing". What I mean by that is that boxes like the xbox360 will be the appliances that people use to check their email and to send/receive IMs, VOIP, etc. The idea of an operating system won't matter to the user, any more than it matters what software the plane you're in is running. Even pilots aren't too familiar with avionics, and it doesn't matter - as long as it works. Once the public has been conditioned to accept computing as this pervasive background thing, then DRM will establish a firm foothold and it becomes difficult for file trading because most won't know enough and won't care enough to mod/change their boxes (which may stop working if you try) in order to manipulate their software in order to trade files.
It all has to to with what generations grow up with. My nephew is 9 - and to him the internet is AOL. His mom is a member, and to him, the web is a place to check his email, play games, and find out information about more games. He knows of this thing called google - you ask it a question, and it gives you answers, but he doesn't like it too much because he feels like it doesn't answer them "right" most of the time. He already has preferred channels for getting his information. X-Play on G4 shapes his gaming opinions ("dude, how can you like that game? it only got 2 out of 5 on x-play!") - and the internet isn't this wide open place for him - but an aggregation of things his already likes to do at places he trusts and knows.
What frustrates him about the internet: Maybe like two years ago, I was babysitting, and we were watching the Discovery channel on rare spiders. He was so interested that he wanted to find out more. I suggested the internet. At the time (lol) whenever he wanted to find something out, he rationalized that the answer would be at www.nameofthatthing.com - in this case www.spider.com. So he typed that in... and suffice it to say, what he got had little to do with spiders.
It was a goth porn site. The main page was some chick with her tits out, nothing more than he'd seen on national geographic, but it made him really mad for some reason. He was like, "spider.com should be about spiders!" All of which is to say, to him the internet isn't ordered the way it should be. And I don't think that sentiment is totally incorrect. I think that the media congloms are slowly moving towards ordering it that way.
I hypothesize that the internet will become more ordered - less transparent - and places like blogs and message boards will be some of the few places average citizens will get to post... and registrations will be scrutinized and traffic will be analyzed... and the status quo will normalize. In this reality, file trading abates because the critical mass audience will be conditioned to accept the status quo - which is the internet as a background datastream - a stream that provides the water coming from your faucet but a stream that you don't DRINK FROM directly. Drink from the faucet - not from the stream. Disagree? Look at AOL commercials with its propaganda. (The internet is a dangerous place. We PROTECT YOU and your children and your money and your life.)
Unfortunately, I think the RIAA has the right idea - scare the kids with fear of litigation - (my nephew wanted the Rock Lobster clip from Family guy - I downloaded the torrent - and we laughed about it for like two hours until my sister made us delete it because she didn't want to get sued - my nephew has now internalized that meme - downloads are like shoplifting to him - which is to say wrong).
Don't get me wrong, I in no way support this. This is what I think is happening though.
... but i'd rather wireless and internet support on the subway. i'd pay for it - but a free text-based ad system would work. and it's a captive audience.
Right, that one entity is you.
sux that you were modded down.
you mean grant a license to the US government or to the local government that needs the drug? what would the cost structure be?
this isn't insightful.
how is it that microsoft is "walmarting" it and google isn't? Your cultural bias is obfuscating your critical faculties.
In fact, not only is google walmarting it, they are going to get people like you to improve it for free (potentially devaluing your own skillset, if you happen to code) all out of some ill-guided cultural devotion. In other words, google is artificially extending their workforce to their advantage for free in this open-ended, cool something that you envision.
Then they'll release a beta for years on end to absolve themselves of responsibility in the event of a subpar product (google talk anyone?) and let the stock run-up continue.
You're remarkably emotional for a nerd. And, as judged by your modding, you have friends.
Eventually. Yes.
This isn't insightful.
I can refer to cliches: teach a man to fish, etc.
providing medical care places third worlders in a subordinate position, forever dependant on first world benevolence, or worse, disguised self-interest. Also, providing meds is bullshit because they have to workaround patent laws. Brazil announced that they would violate american patent law to produce AIDS meds and the US threatened sanctions, but allowed pharm cos. to offer the drugs at costs still too high for the Brazilian government to subsidize by and large. What the fuck!!?!?! Don't give them drugs - give them temporary patent reprieve and let them make their own.
Giving them information allows them to develop their own stuff... way of life... cultural systems.
so it isn't more useful to give them some pills. It's way more useful to give them the means to make their own.
This will be infrastructure intensive: computers and connections and education. Education and information self-empowers people.
also... from another standpoint.... projects like this can actually help the US economy (if the books can be sold to governments for a profit or for controlling interest in natural resources going forward, etc.) whereas giving meds is terminator thinking. Give meds and then what?
However flawed this project might be - it's smart people taking risks and thinking progressively. I'll always applaud that.
Wrong. I didn't imply that it wasn't a skill at all.
What I implied is that young retirees do have this skill, or are far more likely to have it. They've taught subordinates; they've taught children and possibly grandchildren. I further imply, with all things being equal, that young retirees are far more likely to possess this skill than recent graduates by virtue of life experience and professional experience alone. And, I reiterate, recruiting young retirees doesn't require additional budget layouts to the educational system. It allows the system to drastically increase the quality of its teaching core, quickly, at nominal cost increase. This is an amenable solution. In fact, I also reiterate, there is such a pilot program here in NYC, and it has enjoyed some success.
Again, you misintepreted. I merely assumed constant wages and looked at ways to improve the teaching core given such. In my mind, drastic pay raises for teachers across the board is unreasonable and not necessarily a solution to the problem at hand.
It also slows reaction time, reflexes, and impairs visual and audio perception. In addition, it causes pulmonary inflammation. In short, it doesn't confer physical advantage - it is a detriment, both in the short term and long to athletes. The psychological advantage is difficult to measure; athletes often perform poorly after marijuana usage, and as thus it does not meet the typical criteria for performance enhancement. There are some athletes who seem to do as well with it, so data is contradictory and incomplete.
I assumed you were aware of the well known side effects. Clearly a poor assumption on my part, I agree. And it isn't MY LOGIC as you put it, but the logic of my teammates that used it to advantage, and the flowed logic of the Olympic committee that bans weed but not things like green tea extract, which convey far greater indisputable performance advantages.
So I made two incorrect assumptions: first was to assume that you'd bring prior knowledge and reasoning skills, and second that you had reading comprehension skills. In that regard you are correct. You got me dude, I shouldn't have assumed those things. I'll work on it, I promise.
Oh, and the insecure nitpicking and poring over details that have little to do with the point of the whole post is a quality skillset. I'm sure you're the life of the party.
Not to mention that you're the third person to nitpick over that same detail, but the only one to post as AC. Character defects aplenty, I'd say.
But good luck with that though.
agreed. Movie critics who did not go to film school, et al.
/., are competent, and love it). My solution: so many people are retiring younger and healthier than ever before. These people should teach. They've already led successful lives, have loads of life experience and thus have loads of things to teach that aren't in textbooks. More importantly, they have nest eggs so the meager salary isn't an issue to them because they're secure financially. They can afford to do it and are the most suited to do it. It's actually a program here in NY - where the school system is actively recruiting young retirees. This way you dramatically increase the quality of the school system with marginal cost increases.
I have a similar problem with teachers. New teachers are usually in my age range, and don't have much real world experience, are probably not mature enough to teach, et al. But they teach because they were in the lower range of their graduating class with generic degrees and as thus are willing to take meager salaries (this is my general experience with my friends who teach; no offense to those of you who teach on
My experience is that many of my friends in journalism are similar. They face similar issues: meager salaries, low barriers to entry, etc. I propose a similar solution - young retirees move into the journalism space. They've worked in the industry - have decades of perspective. With telecommuting what it is - they can perpetually report from the field... which would be where they choose to retire, etc. They can take the meager salaries because they have nest eggs, etc.
The secondary issue is that modern journalism is vertically integrated with political agendas in large politically vested corporations. I can imagine that the general public often feels hoodwinked and manipulated by the media - coerced into groupthink. That mistrust and the ease with which a motivated individual can self publish will continue a dramatic shift in the power dynamic. There will no longer be a monopoly on information (unless you're google).
The only time I pick up a paper is because an enterprising drug dealer disguises ads for pot in the classified section of the village voice. And they deliver.
It also slows reaction time, reflexes, and impairs visual and audio perception. In addition, it causes pulmonary inflammation. In short, it doesn't confer physical advantage - it is a detriment, both in the short term and long to athletes. The psychological advantage is difficult to measure; athletes often perform poorly after marijuana usage, and as thus it does not meet the typical criteria for performance enhancement. There are some athletes who seem to do as well with it, so data is contradictory and incomplete.
green tea extract is a strong anxiolytic and performance enhancer and increases the rate of muscle lipid oxidation. It has none of the detriments, yet it is not banned.
I don't necessarily think its typical extrovert thinking at all.
I'm rather introverted, and for me it goes like this. Most of the time when I'm thinking about something I have an internal conversation with one of three distinct voices in my head. They often come to different conclusions. I mediate and come to a consensus. the short of this is that it's a lot of fucking talking going on in my head.
The other thing is that I tend to be obtuse - in social situations and be very analytical in public. This causes problems.... many people dont like to interact with someone they perceive might be smarter than they - it causes them to feel insecure. Also, many people tend to base their whole worldview on their opinions. So in what I might perceive as casual conversation ends up altering someone's world view unnecessarily... this tends to create uncomfortable conditions.
One or two drinks for me does the exact thing poster mentioned. When I drink... the other voices are quiet. They don't speak, and it's a very serene vacation from the pinball match that is my psyche. It also allows me to focus intently on more pertinent and prudent pursuits: getting laid. And getting laid is about listening and being what that chick wants right at that time.
Interestingly enough - an analogy. Marijuana is banned by the Olympic committee, even though it doesn't really give athletes an advantage. I ran track - and knew some athletes who smoked weed before meets. The reason: it takes the edge off. Being nervous and jumpy throws their rhythm off; and rhythm is everything when wins and losses are measured in the blink of an eye.
Alcohol works like that for me in a social environment. I usually get something mild or watered down - or get something strong and nurse it. Athletes call it being too keyed-up; I can imagine the equivalent exists for those who have strong cognitive faculties.
And while like you, I enjoy doing my own thing for the most part; I far more enjoy getting laid on a regular basis. You have to join the world to do this.
I am a non-techie.
I like using windows. Right now I have 3 XP boxes and 2 XP notebooks on my home network. I have auto-update on all of my machines so they remain patched. I run adware/spyware utilities on my machines, anti-virus, and use firefox. none of my machines crash - I don't have spyware/adware issues, my network works well and is secure.
everything is dirt cheap; microsoft products integrate seamlessly (my outlook to my pocket pc to spreadsheets to my cell phone, etc; my network was simple to set up and configure) - and I don't have to learn how to do anything. I work in the film industry and am shooting an independent film on my own dime and time - and my XP network does everything I need it to and well... and at cost. Not to mention that in the Wintel world - instead of a couple of solutions to any given problem, I probably have hundreds of options, allowing me to choose the best tool for the project/problem at hand.
I am not emotional about my tools. I don't care how they work. I want them to work cheaply and efficiently. I want lots of solutions and choice, which keeps costs down.
I've used Macs - everyone in the industry uses them. I don't like them as much as I like using windows and I cannot justify the higher prices in general for their hardware. The supposed benefits of security and stability are valuable, but I get these same benefits on my XP machines at lower cost.
DVD sales have much to do with that.
It is still the case. For reference, look at the performance of harry potter - 200 million in 10 days. i saw the film; thought it was mediocre at best (i confess that I don't find harry potter in any way appealing as far as storytelling goes) - but tickets are moving.
i don't think that hollywood's recent troubles have as much to do with quality as it had to do with two other modalities this year: energy prices, and poor marketing.
hollywood is efficient at marketing along old school channels - carpetbombing television, radio, billboards etc. they suck at internet marketing and our television tools aren't efficient enough to locate the desired audiences. So Hollywood hasn't the slightest what people are watching... so it's tough to advertise to them.
2nd, US is a commuter economy. Less people driving always depresses the economy across the board. movies are no different - not gonna fill up the jalopy for the 40 mile trek to the multiplex when my fuel prices have doubled.
don't confuse this as my support of the existing model. hollywood follows it because it works. Combine the aforementioned with sequelitis (I count remakes of television shows in this regard) and you get some market recession.
finally, last year was the year of passion of the christ. that film grossed more than $500 million - and was an independent film... completely off the hollywood radar. that's a once in a lifetime event - and cannot be duplicated. the industry is probably spot on with last year once the aforementioned are taken into account... or pretty close to it.
just buy a new PC for $500 and move your old one on ebay for $150.
for ether's sake, mods, he's right!!!!!
Wish I had mod points, dnaumov.
Dude, I saw a trailer for this superman movie during the harry potter flick. it doesn't look good.
It will further be termed the BAY THRESHOLD. If Bay turns it down, back away slowly.
dude, you're totally right.
Hollywood understands its audience very well.
I work in the industry, and the quandary they face is an interesting one. Smarter people shout the loudest, complaining on the grid about what they like and don't like, but their dollars aren't as compelling. The critical maqss audience is pavlovian - market a blockbuster in a familiar way with the familiar effects, etc... and that audience is there.
Do they listen to the geeks who speak with their high speed internet connections? Or to the less than geeky, who speak with their cash. Hollywood has made its choice.
Actually, infrequently, Hollywood appeals to the geeks and smarter folk by making smarter movies - more varied an intelligent (if flawed, movies). The audience responds by not seeing them at all.
The downside of the popular formula culture is that entire generations are otherwise unaware of anything existing otherwise, further reducing the chance of new and novel shit getting done by the institutions of Hollywood.
Dude, they do those sets for marketing purposes. Children are flooded with toys designed for the impulse buy... expertly tied into the latest kids movie or DVD and/or kids radio, etc. Lego can't compete on those terms... so they do cross-marketing to grow the audience and grab some mindshare. The kids who have a natural affinity for legos latch on - the others move on after the impulse buy.
Our economy is such that, in general... it's the impulse buyers that keep makers of consumer products afloat rather than the loyal customer.
Ny nephew is an atypical child, but he latched on to legos early, and now, at nine... he's expanded the size of his set tenfold and builds huge and complex constructs regularly. The reason he fell into it is because I was a huge lego guy as a kid and passed the love on to him. We often build things together - he sends me pix and we consult on design.
Interestingly enough, many companies are having problems with keeping mindshare for the same reason. For example, the sports leagues (baseball, football, etc.) are facing an increasingly older demographic, as these generations have failed to instill their love for the sport in their kids and grandkids. The NFL speculates that 90% of their fans pick up the sport from a father or father figure. The implosion of the nuclear family and the lack of permanent father figures mean that generations of boys don't have an instilled passion for baseball or football... or whatever. Venture onto a kids channel during daytime hours and you'll be bombarded with NFL for kids and/or NBA for kids commercials et al.
I think legos suffer from a similar problem. they are great toys that a child for the most part needs to be introduced to. Modern day toys are things that are designed to babysit kids for parents, as opposed to involving them and engaging them together. And that's if kids are playing with toys at all. The only toys my nephew has are legos. Other than that, he's a gamer. His friends are no different, except that they don't even like legos. They play games and ride bikes.
This dude I knew once bought an old pocket watch at an estate sale. After a few tokes, while playing splinter cell co-op, he tells me that he's gonna keep the watch in his family... start a tradition. I laughed uproariously; it was the funniest thing I'd heard ever. I understand his sentiment though... now anyway. Part and parcel of a quickly evolving popular culture is a resetting of the mindset, like goldfish....
I know I've gotten completely off-topic... but it's ironic that the very companies that seek to destroy that which is good in man for profit are the very same companies we work for.
Yours truly,
BewireNomali
I went to a catholic school too. They too taught evolution. Genesis was pitched to us as a metaphor.
interestingly enough, much of religious fervor came from the women. The sisters and nuns were more fundamental and had more literal interpretations of scripture. The brothers/priests/etc. tended to accept that Catholicism was more a paradigm for a way of living as opposed to an exact accounting. One priest even told us that he thought that the Jesus story was highly inaccurate, and sincerely doubted that the ressurection occured. We looked at him, dumbfounded, and he continued as if he'd never said it.
I stopped believing in God when I was ten. It scared me: I went to my math teacher at the time, a really nice guy named Mr. Bain. I told him I'd stopped believing in God. He told me that he didn't really believe in God either, but that he occasionally played both sides of the fence in case God was really this angry spiteful uberbeing. Coolest teacher ever. He also told me not to tell the nuns and to pray and stuff like everything was normal.
The point of this post is to say: Religious institutions are hindered by the lowest common denominators in their populations, much like any other group. Those who refuse to let go of antiquated notions hold up the entire institution. In my experience, it was the nuns at Holy Name of Jesus; in the case of religion in general, it's the fundamentalists and hardliners.
Is there virtue in religion? Yes. Many people would not be able to justify a life outside of a religious context. This is not good. Those of us who are comfortable outside of that context shouldn't necessarily try to undermine the entire lives of those who are not. I don't think it's constructive.
To me it sounds like a mugging waiting to happen.
Sounds like you live in New York! Welcome, brother.
toking is the ultimate gaming accessory.
As to PS3 not having an online service, how do you know that? Has Sony said? Personally, I think that PS3 will have good online play, even if it doesn't have an online service. PS2's online play has gone from awful to decent, and there's no reason to think it won't get even better with PS3.
They don't have an online system now. So what that means is that their online system is at best a year away.
they really missed the boat with that. XBox Live is awesome.
Re: Immersion: I speak not of graphics per se. PS2 games sometimes feel limited by the hardware. I don't feel this playing Xbox games. The Xbox limitation is its library.
Immersion!=Realism. XBox games tend to feel more immersive to me. That said, MSFT lacks library variety.
My friends and I all begrudgingly admit that the respecitve consoles have strengths and weaknesses. XBox can't afford any weaknesses as it has an uphill fight in terms of market share.
31 is the average age of the gamer market. You are spot on.
I never played the dreamcast, but I'm of the Playstation generation... and I like the X-Box because of the immersive quality of its games.
I'm a toking gamer - so there's a huge difference between walking into an empty room and skulking into a brilliantly shaded, lit room with curtains wafting in a breeze that I can hide behind in Splinter Cell. Immersion is important to me. X-Box games feel more complete.
By contrast, the PS2 has an awesome variety of games; the library is a compelling reason to own one. Among my friends, I'm the X-Box guy; they all have PS2s, so it works out well.
My experience as a gamer revolves around immersion and variety. The X-Box suffers from a lack of variety; the PS2 is not immersive. The PS2 is akin to watching VHS; whereas the X-Box is more of a DVD experience.
If the PS3 can promise immersion and variety, then I'm there. It'll be an easy call. I'm already going to get an XBox 360 because PS3 missed the boat by not having an online service.