I am wondering if instead of using a player that can read divx, if anybody here knows of a cheap solution to wirelessly display your computer screen on your tv and just play the files from your computer, that way you don't have to worry about format at all.
'I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?"
No, thats what it will take to have the site covertly shut down and its creators shot down.
You know, I watched this, and the whole time I couldn't help but think of the shows creators CRAPPING THEMSELVES because John hit on exactly what they must've been planning when they were creating the show.
Welcome to the new American media folks. Where the Discovery Channel has become the Motorcycle Channel, the news channels are theater, and the Daily Show on Comedy Central is our best source of news.
What I'd like to see is a debate exactly as John discussed. I'd like to see him debate the Crossfire hosts in a prepared debate according to debate guidelines so they can't cut him off as they are instructed to do on the show. Let them prepare all they want. If this was held in a public forum, do you have any idea how many people would show up?
Welcome to my friends list. Perhaps this is the reason why we've seen people walking around with "Stewart for President" signs, but then again, they probably don't realize is that what John really wants is to see the media take the responsibility they have to this country seriously instead of for profit. What is sad is that they HAVE NO SUCH OBLIGATION. They are For-Profit organizations. Which is why I've always wished the U.S. would have our own BBC that focused on the U.S. I know the BBC has slipped a few times, but I'd be thankful for any organization with anything NEAR their credibility and ability to be serious. Hell, our American news couldn't even take 9/11 as seriously as it should what with everybody sensationalizing it. Hell, the tv coverage of it looked like a movie trailer.
Well said. I was going to avoid posting in this discussion because pretty much everything has been said, but your post made me want to add on.
Studies have been showing that not only do more young voters trust the Daily Show than regular news shows, they also tend to be more informed about events (remember the Nielsen study?) about political events than viewers of regular news shows.
While Stewart WISELY takes the position that its just a comedy show and doesn't have a duty to do anything except make people laugh, I'm sure he's damn well aware of the fact that he has the hard earned trust of the vast majority of young voting America. What I find so interesting is that he refuses to admit that they have actual news on the show when in fact they do. They show real news, they just take it and run with it. I'd really like to see him say that they try to keep people informed about some of the more important events going on in America, but that they also try to satire them because of it being a comedy show.
That wording is signficantly different from the position he currently takes and would let him stay in the safety of being a comedy show, while letting him gain even more credibility. If anybody would care to discuss why that might not be a wise move, please do, I'd love to hear an opposing view (and I promise not to make you my monkey hehe). P.S. I should note that I'm in marketing/advertising, so while I enjoy all this for the same reasons you all do, I also try to look at this from my professions perspective.
You know, initially I was going to ask if anybody has the companies contact information so we could point them to this story here and let them read the kind of comments people have posted.
I mean, I'm all for constructive criticism, and would have no problem explaining that they obviously have no idea how to market to kids. And that slapping the word "hip" with an "e" on it will NOT make it appealing to their target market.
I wanted to help their company make and market a better product. But then I read about the MLM scam they have going where you join the squad and get your friends to join, and thats when all my sympathy went down the drain. I hope they go out of business fast so nobody gets suckered in. In fact, I hope someone sets up a website explaining how this is a crap computer and for a lot less money you can get a better performing, better looking computer that doesn't have a blinking LED to alert you to their "affiliates special offers and contests".
Actually, you know what? If someone has their contact info they should post it here, because I'd like to bitch them out for trying something this scummy.
Agreed. Unfortunately, I can't really blame them since that is what is bringing in the ad dollars and the viewers.
I wonder what the world will be like with a generation who grows up not knowing the joys of seeing the breasts of women in third world countries with discs through their lips, or watching animals get it on, or seeing all the cool gadgets of the future like they did on Beyond 2000.
The glory days of the Discovery Channel are far behind, I just hope they can rekindle some of their past fire. What made them so great was that they DIDN'T cater to the general public. They need to rethink their branding.
I think you were joking but got modded insightful. Perhaps its just that you have poor communication skills when in meetings, but almost all of the meetings I go to have been extremely productive and successful.
Why? Because we focus on what needs to be done, keep chatter to a minimum, and constantly think about what the next step is that needs to be taken, and then take it. Meetings don't have to be pointless time wasters if you have people who actually know how to HAVE meetings.
Eurleif, I understand why you might feel this way, but you need to put yourself in their shoes for a second.
You have a client, and the client wants more customers. You don't go pitching that client on how you have a nice and fluffy site for kids, because you're not pitching the site to kids. You want to put it in terms the clients marketers can understand, so you refer to the children as potential consumers. Its business language because those studies are for business use.
I'm in advertising/marketing, and while I personally feel that the concept of building brand recognition at a young age is not nearly as valuable as people in the industry currently think (just another fad), allow me to explain how it works. They hope that by letting kids play the games, the kid will take the company images that they constantly see (logo, characters, items, etc) and associate it with the good feelings they get when they play the game and achieve things. They are in essence playing off the psychology of it.
But you are right, they are a marketing company who's product is the eyeballs of the gamers, and their method of getting those eyeballs is through the games. But on the flipside, they do provide a cool interactive world that has a lot of socialization and some interesting challenging games. Even if they are just marketing material. I don't recall anybody getting up in arms over Candystand and the like.
As someone in advertising/marketing I looked at this game from a similar perspective. Then I remembered that there were free branded games out there that I enjoyed playing in highschool such as the ones at Candystand. These don't require any registration, and they still get the branded message across.
But the question really is about where you draw the line. As an industry professional, I can recognize the value of this, but at the same time would never want to subject children to it. Of course, I'm a personal believer that the branding through these games really has a minimal effect. And while I'm not entirely sure how many ad dollars they get for it, I know I would never consider suggesting this to a client because I don't think it would be effective at all.
"I immediately thought of this too. Plus, there's the collision factor: an elderly person who isn't too steady and who has slower reaction times than the norm is more likely to hit an obstacle that suddenly appears in his path and/or fall off as a result of the resulting sudden stop."
There is no excuse for this behavior. To all the people saying "its either that or let the family go hungry"...there will ALWAYS be jobs for you. Remember, the world needs ditch diggers.
Nobody ever said you had to like it, but there is no guarantee that you get to work in your chosen profession. If someone was holding a gun to his head and said "code this or die", that'd be one thing. But this kid had a freakin job WHILE HE WAS DOING THIS.
I realize you were talking about a developing darkroom, but I really don't like red displays. I have a sony CD player that has a red display with black text on it, and in the dark it has to be the toughest thing ever on the eyes to read. And when I need to glance down quickly while driving to see what track I'm on, my eyes are aching enough to make me just wish I liked what was on the radio.
Why not look into other color schemes that cause less eye strain?
So this is good then for Amazon,Ebay and all the other online retailers out there? I mean, they won't require ID checks will they? If I was under 18 and a store refused to sell me a game and I couldn't just find an older person around to buy it for me, I'd go straight online and either download it or buy it online.
Don't do the slashvertiser any more favors. The email address of the submitter is stuart@pocket-lint.co.uk. Just another slashvertisement, nothing to see, move along.
This whole thing really comes down to substance over style.
Blizzard has a long track record of focusing on gameplay gameplay develo....err....gameplay whereas Sony has proven time and time again that they will throw lots of money into flashy graphics, this new voice talent, lots of marketing, etc.
Both games will attract different and similar crowds, but I think the mature gamers will appreciate the depth of WoW whereas the younger people who have all day to spend camping and powerleveling will stick to EQ.
Frankly, this isn't such a bad thing. I've been enjoying the recent trend of niche market MMORPGs and hope they continue to be developed as more and more people will find the game thats right for them, which will have the pleasant side effect of getting rid of a lot of the people that they typically don't enjoy playing with for various reasons.
I predict both will do fine, even if for different reasons, although in the end if I ever do pick up another MMORPG, it will most likely be WoW over EQ.
What I'd REALLY like is a turn based strategy game that focuses on the detail of the Warhammer world. There are some EXTREMELY complex rules that I'd love to see implemented true to the books. I want to be able to have a ruler on screen to measure my movement, etc.
The other feature I'd really like to have is the ability to customize my minis down to the smallest detail. Perhaps this might even require a seperate army painting program that lets you get in there with a tiny brush to get things as detailed as you would have them in real life.
I mean, I like dawn of wars color scheme editor, but for anybody who's ever painstakingly painted in the eyes on every one of their models, it was seriously lacking in the detail department.
I'd also like the game to use pre-assembled armies. None of this building crap. You decide with someone you play online how many points the game will be and build your army accordingly.
I often find myself wondering what would happen if the Hindenberg never made the world terrified of airships as methods of mass transportation.
Surely we would have our flying cars today in the form of personal airships. I mean, I'd feel a hell of a lot safer in one of those than I would with Moller's Skycar or something like that.
On Slashdot people repeatedly point out "what happens when you have an accident at 1000 feet?" and something like this would make those accidents a lot less fatal. Also probably because I'll bet they can't move that fast.
Does anybody have any interesting sci-fi that focuses on alternate timelines where airships are abundant?
Slashdot Mirror
"You are now approaching the condom isle! We would like to inform you there is a frequent brand buyer discount for Magnum condoms available."
Now I just need to make sure there are attractive girls around when it says that.
No, thats what it will take to have the site covertly shut down and its creators shot down.
Welcome to the new American media folks. Where the Discovery Channel has become the Motorcycle Channel, the news channels are theater, and the Daily Show on Comedy Central is our best source of news.
Studies have been showing that not only do more young voters trust the Daily Show than regular news shows, they also tend to be more informed about events (remember the Nielsen study?) about political events than viewers of regular news shows.
While Stewart WISELY takes the position that its just a comedy show and doesn't have a duty to do anything except make people laugh, I'm sure he's damn well aware of the fact that he has the hard earned trust of the vast majority of young voting America. What I find so interesting is that he refuses to admit that they have actual news on the show when in fact they do. They show real news, they just take it and run with it. I'd really like to see him say that they try to keep people informed about some of the more important events going on in America, but that they also try to satire them because of it being a comedy show.
That wording is signficantly different from the position he currently takes and would let him stay in the safety of being a comedy show, while letting him gain even more credibility. If anybody would care to discuss why that might not be a wise move, please do, I'd love to hear an opposing view (and I promise not to make you my monkey hehe). P.S. I should note that I'm in marketing/advertising, so while I enjoy all this for the same reasons you all do, I also try to look at this from my professions perspective.
I mean, I'm all for constructive criticism, and would have no problem explaining that they obviously have no idea how to market to kids. And that slapping the word "hip" with an "e" on it will NOT make it appealing to their target market.
I wanted to help their company make and market a better product. But then I read about the MLM scam they have going where you join the squad and get your friends to join, and thats when all my sympathy went down the drain. I hope they go out of business fast so nobody gets suckered in. In fact, I hope someone sets up a website explaining how this is a crap computer and for a lot less money you can get a better performing, better looking computer that doesn't have a blinking LED to alert you to their "affiliates special offers and contests".
Actually, you know what? If someone has their contact info they should post it here, because I'd like to bitch them out for trying something this scummy.
I wonder what the world will be like with a generation who grows up not knowing the joys of seeing the breasts of women in third world countries with discs through their lips, or watching animals get it on, or seeing all the cool gadgets of the future like they did on Beyond 2000.
The glory days of the Discovery Channel are far behind, I just hope they can rekindle some of their past fire. What made them so great was that they DIDN'T cater to the general public. They need to rethink their branding.
Why? Because we focus on what needs to be done, keep chatter to a minimum, and constantly think about what the next step is that needs to be taken, and then take it. Meetings don't have to be pointless time wasters if you have people who actually know how to HAVE meetings.
You have a client, and the client wants more customers. You don't go pitching that client on how you have a nice and fluffy site for kids, because you're not pitching the site to kids. You want to put it in terms the clients marketers can understand, so you refer to the children as potential consumers. Its business language because those studies are for business use.
I'm in advertising/marketing, and while I personally feel that the concept of building brand recognition at a young age is not nearly as valuable as people in the industry currently think (just another fad), allow me to explain how it works. They hope that by letting kids play the games, the kid will take the company images that they constantly see (logo, characters, items, etc) and associate it with the good feelings they get when they play the game and achieve things. They are in essence playing off the psychology of it.
But you are right, they are a marketing company who's product is the eyeballs of the gamers, and their method of getting those eyeballs is through the games. But on the flipside, they do provide a cool interactive world that has a lot of socialization and some interesting challenging games. Even if they are just marketing material. I don't recall anybody getting up in arms over Candystand and the like.
But the question really is about where you draw the line. As an industry professional, I can recognize the value of this, but at the same time would never want to subject children to it. Of course, I'm a personal believer that the branding through these games really has a minimal effect. And while I'm not entirely sure how many ad dollars they get for it, I know I would never consider suggesting this to a client because I don't think it would be effective at all.
Two words: Farmer's Market
Nobody ever said you had to like it, but there is no guarantee that you get to work in your chosen profession. If someone was holding a gun to his head and said "code this or die", that'd be one thing. But this kid had a freakin job WHILE HE WAS DOING THIS.
SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh. Don't you know they're listening?!
Why not look into other color schemes that cause less eye strain?
Blizzard has a long track record of focusing on gameplay gameplay develo....err....gameplay whereas Sony has proven time and time again that they will throw lots of money into flashy graphics, this new voice talent, lots of marketing, etc.
Both games will attract different and similar crowds, but I think the mature gamers will appreciate the depth of WoW whereas the younger people who have all day to spend camping and powerleveling will stick to EQ.
Frankly, this isn't such a bad thing. I've been enjoying the recent trend of niche market MMORPGs and hope they continue to be developed as more and more people will find the game thats right for them, which will have the pleasant side effect of getting rid of a lot of the people that they typically don't enjoy playing with for various reasons.
I predict both will do fine, even if for different reasons, although in the end if I ever do pick up another MMORPG, it will most likely be WoW over EQ.
The other feature I'd really like to have is the ability to customize my minis down to the smallest detail. Perhaps this might even require a seperate army painting program that lets you get in there with a tiny brush to get things as detailed as you would have them in real life.
I mean, I like dawn of wars color scheme editor, but for anybody who's ever painstakingly painted in the eyes on every one of their models, it was seriously lacking in the detail department.
I'd also like the game to use pre-assembled armies. None of this building crap. You decide with someone you play online how many points the game will be and build your army accordingly.
Surely we would have our flying cars today in the form of personal airships. I mean, I'd feel a hell of a lot safer in one of those than I would with Moller's Skycar or something like that.
On Slashdot people repeatedly point out "what happens when you have an accident at 1000 feet?" and something like this would make those accidents a lot less fatal. Also probably because I'll bet they can't move that fast.
Does anybody have any interesting sci-fi that focuses on alternate timelines where airships are abundant?
Sorry, had to be said.