Evolution is a powerful but imperfect engine. It's great at solving specific problems, but it comes with strange side effects, always, such as the human body's tendency to store fat. Overweight? Blame evolution for your outdated software. Compounding the problem is that evolved systems are difficult to understand, because evolution uses the whole environment to form solutions. Therefore, we won't fully understand our own genetics for a while. Our bodies are evolved with forces present that we can't even see.
Sure, it's nice to tinker. Genetic research is inevitable and really not too far off from selective breeding that we do in life and with lifestock and plants. But there's a difference between using evolution and altering genes. Altering genes does not "speed up evolution". Gene therapy changes evolved code, and we have no idea what the results might be. Fix one thing, and you get a new problem. We will end up chasing windwills in search of the "perfect" body, or we will end up with specifically suited bodies -- people who can live well in zero g; people who can run fast; people who live long.
And seriously, it's all fun and games until Khan strands you in the middle of an astroid.
Eyeglasses. The modern set of glasses is the same basic model that's been around of centuries. One of the first prosthetics, eyeglasses actually correct one's inherent malfunctioning eyeballs. Now that's useful! So when someone brings up how bizarre the idea of implants is, throw eyeglasses at them. Not only are we borg, but we've been borg for a while.
The bicycle. Not only are bikes fun, but they perform their function remarkably well, transfering energy into velocity way better than our legs can. I am always amazed at how well the bicycle works. The modern bike's design is basically the same as...heck, I don't know, but wasn't Butch Cassidy riding around on one in the movie?
Digital photography. I've always had an interest in photography, starting with my first SLR when I was around ten. When I first heard of digital still cameras, the technology struck me as ideal. I remember arguing with purists who postulated that digital would never replace film, and slowly professionals started adopting higher end digital SLRs, eeking their way into magazines, the purists none the wiser. Today, digital photography is easy, cheap, immediate, and more controllable than traditional photography could ever be. Everybody's shooting, and soon the quality of digital images will far exceed that of film.
"Taking a risk on a new band" is the record company's excuse for simple exploitation. They snatch up the best acts and make money off them. It's a matter of spotting the gold, sealing it in plastic, and selling it. There is no inherent virtue in it, and there is no risk, no matter how many failed acts they invest in.
But the band accepted the contract! Nobody held a gun to its head. This is true, but bear in mind the band has no alternative, unless you count NOT being professional musicians. It's the same argument a monopolistic industry uses on consumers: If you don't like it, don't buy. Of course, there's no alternative for the consumer either. The artist and consumer have no choice, because the established industry leaders have a monopoly on the distribution system. It's that simple.
Think about that. The RIAA OWNS the distribution system, the way in which artists reach consumers. They own music as we know it. And, assuming people always want music, owning the distribution system guarantees profit; it's a no-lose situation, a riskless investment. The question is not IF they'll make money but HOW MUCH.
Put this theory to the test. When's the last year the industry lost money, didn't make a profit? Invested in so many failed acts that it didn't make money off the successful ones?
Exactly. David Geffen is not a billionaire because he loses lots of money.
The problem isn't that artists make X amount on X number of album sales. Who's to say a new system, say the one that will evolve from file sharing, will pay more? It may pay less. The problem, rather, is that there is no alternative for the artists, because there is no alternative for the consumer. What the record industry does is no more virtuous than the local mafia charging you a percentage of your business in exchange for not burning down your store. What's needed is the crushing of the RIAA's illegal cartel, zero tolerance for its anti-competitive tactics, and the introduction of new means of distribution.
People have mentioned Linux as a reason for PC game slumps? Are you serious? I would wager Linux's presence has no effect on PC game sales.
Speaking for myself, I prefer PC games hands down over consoles. However, if I had to buy a gift for a family member who likes games, I'd get a console. Consoles are cheaper and easy-to-use, as has been pointed out. The steps needed to play a console game out of the box vs. the PC equivalent are ridiculously simpler.
Plus, consoles are sitting-around-the-sofa-with-friends machines, wheras PC's are sitting-around-alone-in-your-underwear machines. Introducing the social element to a game (including sports) seems to always draw crowds. FPS's suck on console, but other genres are much better with a pad than with mouse and keyboard, like flight games, driving games, etc.
Where your film school director fails is in the presupposition "what's wrong with Spielberg". Is there anything wrong? I mean, Spielberg is not what he used to be, but then neither is anyone what he used to be. He was young. Name a director, Kubrick included, who got better with age. It doesn't happen. They ALWAYS get worse.
I agree that Spielberg wants his movies popular. But I prefer this trait in a director whose movie I lay down money for. I mean, do you want someone telling you a story who doesn't give a shit whether or not you enjoy it? There's too much of that in the business already.
Ten years ago everyone said Spielberg was washed up, until he made Jurassic Park and Schindler's List the same year. Now he's made Private Ryan and Minority Report. IMO, if another director had made either movie, he'd ride it for his whole career. We simply remember what young Spielberg could do and expect too much.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your assessment is just plain false. First, Spielberg only fleshed out the story, and the overall structure is what most people had a problem with. This is the man, Spielberg, who has made two truly bad movies in his career -- 1941 and A.I. Sure, some weren't masterpieces, maybe overly sentimental, but Spielberg is the most consistent director, well, pretty much in the history of cinema. That's to say nothing of the fact that Kubrick tried and failed to make the story work for twenty years and asked Spielberg to direct (which he turned down). In other words, Stanely never got the story right, and Spielberg did it as a friend's dieing wish.
Now, A.I. is a failure. It's slow. It's "out there". It's hard to believe. The story is self-indulgent, and the ending is ambiguous. It sounds like...a Kubrik movie!
I, yes, work in the industry. It's true that Spielberg, like many producers, has his share of failures. But he is, matter of fact, extremely involved in his projects. He's the hardest working guy out there, a force of nature. But with all the failures, what's made Spielberg one of the most powerful when in the business, is his unequalled success rate. Look up his producing credits on IMDB. "Unequalled success" isn't just an figure of speech with him. It's a fact.
OK. I have no idea how good Taken is, because I've not had time to watch it, but I wanted to deflate these weird false assumptions people have about Spielberg. It's like, "Spielberg ruined what would otherwise have been a Kubrick masterpiece, like Eyes Wide Shut," or, "Taken is bad because of Spielberg, but he had nothing to do with it." What a load.
The whole concept seems contrary to what many gamers go for in MMOGs. Don't players LIKE that advantage in the real world doesn't follow into the game world? Project Entropia allows players to buy into power using real dollars, so I guess it stands to reason that wealthier real world players will acquire more power and wealth in the game. I'm scratching my head wondering how this translates to better gameplay.
Maybe this setup will attract older players with more disposable income?
It really sounds as if the Entropia people saw knuckleheads spending thousands on Ebay to buy Ultima characters and decided to cash in by routing that money into their own pockets. I mean, everything in the game degrades. And who is the only "manufacturer" of new equipment? Hmm.
Besides, the first schmuck who loses a bunch of money on some crappy item will sue the company.
I'm a pro writer/director. I'm not an editor, but I too work with all the programs you mention.
The truth about Avid's popularity is that, for a long time, it allowed editors to cut in real time. There was nothing else, no mini-DV, no cheap software that did the same. And so Avid became the industry standard. Many editors like Avid, because they can play the Avid keyboard like a piano.
Then there's the prosumer Premiere and FCP. Make no mistake about it, FCP is prosumer. Most people use it for mini-DV, a prosumer format. Additionally, there's Avid Xpress DV. Some editors are turning to this program because the format is identical to the other Avid suites. In fact, they are all consistent, regardless of what kind of Avid you have. Avid Xpress DV is the fastest mini-DV editor around, but it will probably not catch on, because it's very proprietary, whereas FCP and Premiere use standard DV codecs.
Anyway, FCP and Premiere are very similar. The schemas are basically the same. I have never known either to be particularly unstable. I just edited a small project with an editor who uses FCP, and it crashed a few times a day, which is to be expected. The bottom line is that FCP and Premiere allow realtime cutting, and that's the vast majority of what you need in the editing process.
FCP is getting popular, because it's a good program, because Macs come with standard firewire, and because Macs have a legacy in video editing. Personally, I go with PCs. I can install a firewire card and get substantially more performance for my money. Plus, I feel I have a more open system. I hate having to buy Mac crap, because it always seems to cost more.
That's my two cents. If they port FCP to the PC, I may change my toon.
Video editing on the Mac versus PC is no different than pretty much any other application. Final Cut Pro is a fine product, and OS X is maybe the best OS in existence. But I've yet to find a Final Cut user who can name anything significant he can do in Final Cut that can't be done in, say, Premiere or anything important the Max OS offers over a PC. Sure, there's the amorphous "experience" of using a Mac. But it costs more, and when I pay more, I want something substantial for my money. Apple is trying to sell me a ghost.
Someone mentioned something about price, and I agree with not only that but computers in general. Something like the tablet PC could work, because it would be a good machine for current non-computer-users. Ease of use is another key, and using one input device (a pen which has a direct real world counterpart) versus two (a mouse and keyboard) would probably make it easier to start using a PC.
I'm vexed by the idea that Apple is more virtuous than Microsoft. Sure, MS is big, but Apple owns not only the OS, but all the hardware too. And, in my experience, they force users into buying stuff that should cost much less. When I close my eyes and imagine what would've happend if Apple had won the PC war, I shudder.
Steve Jobs gets one thing right. He sees computers as consumer electronics and not business machines. An Apple launch is like a toy show, Microsoft like a business presentation. Macs are slower machines that cost more (more than Dell) and run less applications. But they're pretty! I have to admit it.
Let's face it. The PC market is divided by how ever many manufacturers there are out there. Apple's is divided by one. They have the resources (and ownership over the hardware) to make nice looking versions of the same basic product, much like the PT Cruiser or new Beetle. That's why they even still exist.
Okay. I don't write for Wired, but I'm going to make a prediction anyway. In fact, what I just said is a prediction, and my giving of said prediction proves my ability to do so accurately. At any rate, here it is.
Most or all companies that make up the RIAA (and probably the MPA) will go belly up, and they will probably do it within our lifetime. Some will fight the new technology til the bitter end. Some will try to adapt and will fail anyway. Some may actually pull it off.
Then a new system for profiting from music will evolve, one that accepts file sharing as just part of the environment.
The RIAA faces one central problem today -- They don't own all the destro channels anymore. It's that simple. In the retail store world, one cannot execute a major release without going through the gatekeepers, the RIAA. It can't be done. It's easy to see why the RIAA wants to maintain the status quo. It guarantees revenue!
Literally any other method of distributing music is an enemy of the RIAA. But what we don't hear in the grand copyright/music argument is that there is no harm. Downloads, according to the numbers, have no affect right now on CD sales. It is, therefore by definition, harmless.
CD copy protection is a dumb idea. It's a limp attempt to hold onto the old ways, like Jack Horner refusing to shoot on videotape. The only way to curb piracy is to offer a fair deal for the product for which you create demand or to not put the product out at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously don't see the correlations between feeding the poor and spaceships. Now who's the lame one?
One Man's Opinion Here:
Evolution is a powerful but imperfect engine. It's great at solving specific problems, but it comes with strange side effects, always, such as the human body's tendency to store fat. Overweight? Blame evolution for your outdated software. Compounding the problem is that evolved systems are difficult to understand, because evolution uses the whole environment to form solutions. Therefore, we won't fully understand our own genetics for a while. Our bodies are evolved with forces present that we can't even see.
Sure, it's nice to tinker. Genetic research is inevitable and really not too far off from selective breeding that we do in life and with lifestock and plants. But there's a difference between using evolution and altering genes. Altering genes does not "speed up evolution". Gene therapy changes evolved code, and we have no idea what the results might be. Fix one thing, and you get a new problem. We will end up chasing windwills in search of the "perfect" body, or we will end up with specifically suited bodies -- people who can live well in zero g; people who can run fast; people who live long.
And seriously, it's all fun and games until Khan strands you in the middle of an astroid.
KKHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
Eyeglasses. The modern set of glasses is the same basic model that's been around of centuries. One of the first prosthetics, eyeglasses actually correct one's inherent malfunctioning eyeballs. Now that's useful! So when someone brings up how bizarre the idea of implants is, throw eyeglasses at them. Not only are we borg, but we've been borg for a while.
The bicycle. Not only are bikes fun, but they perform their function remarkably well, transfering energy into velocity way better than our legs can. I am always amazed at how well the bicycle works. The modern bike's design is basically the same as...heck, I don't know, but wasn't Butch Cassidy riding around on one in the movie?
Digital photography. I've always had an interest in photography, starting with my first SLR when I was around ten. When I first heard of digital still cameras, the technology struck me as ideal. I remember arguing with purists who postulated that digital would never replace film, and slowly professionals started adopting higher end digital SLRs, eeking their way into magazines, the purists none the wiser. Today, digital photography is easy, cheap, immediate, and more controllable than traditional photography could ever be. Everybody's shooting, and soon the quality of digital images will far exceed that of film.
"Taking a risk on a new band" is the record company's excuse for simple exploitation. They snatch up the best acts and make money off them. It's a matter of spotting the gold, sealing it in plastic, and selling it. There is no inherent virtue in it, and there is no risk, no matter how many failed acts they invest in.
But the band accepted the contract! Nobody held a gun to its head. This is true, but bear in mind the band has no alternative, unless you count NOT being professional musicians. It's the same argument a monopolistic industry uses on consumers: If you don't like it, don't buy. Of course, there's no alternative for the consumer either. The artist and consumer have no choice, because the established industry leaders have a monopoly on the distribution system. It's that simple.
Think about that. The RIAA OWNS the distribution system, the way in which artists reach consumers. They own music as we know it. And, assuming people always want music, owning the distribution system guarantees profit; it's a no-lose situation, a riskless investment. The question is not IF they'll make money but HOW MUCH.
Put this theory to the test. When's the last year the industry lost money, didn't make a profit? Invested in so many failed acts that it didn't make money off the successful ones?
Exactly. David Geffen is not a billionaire because he loses lots of money.
The problem isn't that artists make X amount on X number of album sales. Who's to say a new system, say the one that will evolve from file sharing, will pay more? It may pay less. The problem, rather, is that there is no alternative for the artists, because there is no alternative for the consumer. What the record industry does is no more virtuous than the local mafia charging you a percentage of your business in exchange for not burning down your store. What's needed is the crushing of the RIAA's illegal cartel, zero tolerance for its anti-competitive tactics, and the introduction of new means of distribution.
People have mentioned Linux as a reason for PC game slumps? Are you serious? I would wager Linux's presence has no effect on PC game sales.
Speaking for myself, I prefer PC games hands down over consoles. However, if I had to buy a gift for a family member who likes games, I'd get a console. Consoles are cheaper and easy-to-use, as has been pointed out. The steps needed to play a console game out of the box vs. the PC equivalent are ridiculously simpler.
Plus, consoles are sitting-around-the-sofa-with-friends machines, wheras PC's are sitting-around-alone-in-your-underwear machines. Introducing the social element to a game (including sports) seems to always draw crowds. FPS's suck on console, but other genres are much better with a pad than with mouse and keyboard, like flight games, driving games, etc.
Where your film school director fails is in the presupposition "what's wrong with Spielberg". Is there anything wrong? I mean, Spielberg is not what he used to be, but then neither is anyone what he used to be. He was young. Name a director, Kubrick included, who got better with age. It doesn't happen. They ALWAYS get worse.
I agree that Spielberg wants his movies popular. But I prefer this trait in a director whose movie I lay down money for. I mean, do you want someone telling you a story who doesn't give a shit whether or not you enjoy it? There's too much of that in the business already.
Ten years ago everyone said Spielberg was washed up, until he made Jurassic Park and Schindler's List the same year. Now he's made Private Ryan and Minority Report. IMO, if another director had made either movie, he'd ride it for his whole career. We simply remember what young Spielberg could do and expect too much.
Your assessment is just plain false. First, Spielberg only fleshed out the story, and the overall structure is what most people had a problem with. This is the man, Spielberg, who has made two truly bad movies in his career -- 1941 and A.I. Sure, some weren't masterpieces, maybe overly sentimental, but Spielberg is the most consistent director, well, pretty much in the history of cinema. That's to say nothing of the fact that Kubrick tried and failed to make the story work for twenty years and asked Spielberg to direct (which he turned down). In other words, Stanely never got the story right, and Spielberg did it as a friend's dieing wish.
Now, A.I. is a failure. It's slow. It's "out there". It's hard to believe. The story is self-indulgent, and the ending is ambiguous. It sounds like...a Kubrik movie!
I, yes, work in the industry. It's true that Spielberg, like many producers, has his share of failures. But he is, matter of fact, extremely involved in his projects. He's the hardest working guy out there, a force of nature. But with all the failures, what's made Spielberg one of the most powerful when in the business, is his unequalled success rate. Look up his producing credits on IMDB. "Unequalled success" isn't just an figure of speech with him. It's a fact.
OK. I have no idea how good Taken is, because I've not had time to watch it, but I wanted to deflate these weird false assumptions people have about Spielberg. It's like, "Spielberg ruined what would otherwise have been a Kubrick masterpiece, like Eyes Wide Shut," or, "Taken is bad because of Spielberg, but he had nothing to do with it." What a load.
The whole concept seems contrary to what many gamers go for in MMOGs. Don't players LIKE that advantage in the real world doesn't follow into the game world? Project Entropia allows players to buy into power using real dollars, so I guess it stands to reason that wealthier real world players will acquire more power and wealth in the game. I'm scratching my head wondering how this translates to better gameplay.
Maybe this setup will attract older players with more disposable income?
It really sounds as if the Entropia people saw knuckleheads spending thousands on Ebay to buy Ultima characters and decided to cash in by routing that money into their own pockets. I mean, everything in the game degrades. And who is the only "manufacturer" of new equipment? Hmm.
Besides, the first schmuck who loses a bunch of money on some crappy item will sue the company.
I'm a pro writer/director. I'm not an editor, but I too work with all the programs you mention.
The truth about Avid's popularity is that, for a long time, it allowed editors to cut in real time. There was nothing else, no mini-DV, no cheap software that did the same. And so Avid became the industry standard. Many editors like Avid, because they can play the Avid keyboard like a piano.
Then there's the prosumer Premiere and FCP. Make no mistake about it, FCP is prosumer. Most people use it for mini-DV, a prosumer format. Additionally, there's Avid Xpress DV. Some editors are turning to this program because the format is identical to the other Avid suites. In fact, they are all consistent, regardless of what kind of Avid you have. Avid Xpress DV is the fastest mini-DV editor around, but it will probably not catch on, because it's very proprietary, whereas FCP and Premiere use standard DV codecs.
Anyway, FCP and Premiere are very similar. The schemas are basically the same. I have never known either to be particularly unstable. I just edited a small project with an editor who uses FCP, and it crashed a few times a day, which is to be expected. The bottom line is that FCP and Premiere allow realtime cutting, and that's the vast majority of what you need in the editing process.
FCP is getting popular, because it's a good program, because Macs come with standard firewire, and because Macs have a legacy in video editing. Personally, I go with PCs. I can install a firewire card and get substantially more performance for my money. Plus, I feel I have a more open system. I hate having to buy Mac crap, because it always seems to cost more.
That's my two cents. If they port FCP to the PC, I may change my toon.
Video editing on the Mac versus PC is no different than pretty much any other application. Final Cut Pro is a fine product, and OS X is maybe the best OS in existence. But I've yet to find a Final Cut user who can name anything significant he can do in Final Cut that can't be done in, say, Premiere or anything important the Max OS offers over a PC. Sure, there's the amorphous "experience" of using a Mac. But it costs more, and when I pay more, I want something substantial for my money. Apple is trying to sell me a ghost.
Someone mentioned something about price, and I agree with not only that but computers in general. Something like the tablet PC could work, because it would be a good machine for current non-computer-users. Ease of use is another key, and using one input device (a pen which has a direct real world counterpart) versus two (a mouse and keyboard) would probably make it easier to start using a PC.
I'm vexed by the idea that Apple is more virtuous than Microsoft. Sure, MS is big, but Apple owns not only the OS, but all the hardware too. And, in my experience, they force users into buying stuff that should cost much less. When I close my eyes and imagine what would've happend if Apple had won the PC war, I shudder.
Steve Jobs gets one thing right. He sees computers as consumer electronics and not business machines. An Apple launch is like a toy show, Microsoft like a business presentation. Macs are slower machines that cost more (more than Dell) and run less applications. But they're pretty! I have to admit it.
Let's face it. The PC market is divided by how ever many manufacturers there are out there. Apple's is divided by one. They have the resources (and ownership over the hardware) to make nice looking versions of the same basic product, much like the PT Cruiser or new Beetle. That's why they even still exist.
Do what I do. Order the ten CDs for a penny.
Then split.
Okay. I don't write for Wired, but I'm going to make a prediction anyway. In fact, what I just said is a prediction, and my giving of said prediction proves my ability to do so accurately. At any rate, here it is.
Most or all companies that make up the RIAA (and probably the MPA) will go belly up, and they will probably do it within our lifetime. Some will fight the new technology til the bitter end. Some will try to adapt and will fail anyway. Some may actually pull it off.
Then a new system for profiting from music will evolve, one that accepts file sharing as just part of the environment.
The RIAA faces one central problem today -- They don't own all the destro channels anymore. It's that simple. In the retail store world, one cannot execute a major release without going through the gatekeepers, the RIAA. It can't be done. It's easy to see why the RIAA wants to maintain the status quo. It guarantees revenue!
Literally any other method of distributing music is an enemy of the RIAA. But what we don't hear in the grand copyright/music argument is that there is no harm. Downloads, according to the numbers, have no affect right now on CD sales. It is, therefore by definition, harmless.
CD copy protection is a dumb idea. It's a limp attempt to hold onto the old ways, like Jack Horner refusing to shoot on videotape. The only way to curb piracy is to offer a fair deal for the product for which you create demand or to not put the product out at all.