Yeah, its definitely a children's show. that's why its broadcast on pre prime-time slot on holidays, and then on Saturdays in the 5-6pm slot. That's typically before the sports start. Incidentally, its the same time-slot that the A-Team was broadcast, so you can kind of see the target audience age (and the reason why there's always some form of totty sidekick present for the Dads who have to watch it with their kids)
However, I think the 'modern' doctor series have done remarkably well in appealing to an older audience as well.
That's part of the viewing differences between the UK and the US. The A-Team was always televised in the 8pm time slot back on NBC, not 5pm or 6pm as in the UK.
As others have stated, plenty of us US fans grew up watching Doctor Who on PBS stations that generally televised it beginning at 10pm on Saturdays. That's how I remember it. And since for the most part they focused on the Tom Baker era, it was rather dark and creepy enough to give the impression that it was a show for adults. One of the first episodes I saw - when I was 10 - was "State of Decay" and that was creepy. Hell, "The Keeper of Traken" was creepy too.
Looks like the new season finally starts on April 17 at 9 eastern here in the States.
I find it "amusing" that BBC America is scheduling the show in the 9pm time slot which Julie Gardner - the previous producer of the show - complained about when SyFy scheduled it in the same time slot on Fridays right before Battlestar Galactica. That was a kick a$$ night of scifi for me and plenty of other fans...
That makes this significant because up until now, only specials were done in HD. The BBC had previously said it was too expensive to make Doctor Who in HD due to all the special effects, so obviously we've reached a turning point where the money made from selling overseas has made it viable in HD. Win.
It would be nice to see it legally in HD here in the U.S. but unfortunately, stupid BBC America HD is pretty much only available on Time Warner Cable and not Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Dish, or DirecTV. Had the show remained on SyFy where it belonged, many more fans could be watching it in HD courtesy of SyFy HD being a basic HD channel in most markets...
Perhaps they won't gouge the PBS stations in a year and it may air on some of them in HD.
The TARDIS has always been unreliable (when the plot demanded it). The in story reasons are something to do with the idea that the TARDIS was already old, unreliable and in for repair when the Doctor "borrowed" it a few centuries ago, it also explains why it's stuck in the form of a 1960s police box - the chameleon circuit being broken. Having an imperfect TARDIS has allowed for some good stories during the history of the show so I don't think they'd want to have it ever fully be fixed - even if it can repair itself to some extent (again perfect for allowing a new set to be constructed when old ones wouldn't work for HD)
My own personal theory is the TARDIS belonged to The Doctor's father and after he went missing and the Time Lords covered it up, The Doctor stole it...
BBC Worldwide should also be looking into posting Classic Doctor Who on Hulu and/or YouTube. The same goes for the 1996 TV Movie - which has never been released on DVD here in the U.S. - and S1-S4... Of course, these ideas would require brain power that seems to be lacking within that organization...
...Everyone who is in the US and saw the premiere last night please raise your hand now in a two fingered salute to whoever the executives are that have decided they still can't give us same day showing of Doctor Who on BBC America!
Screw BBC America. The show should be back on SyFy where it belongs here in the States.
SyFy is usually part of the basic cable package of most providers and the HD channel is usually part of the basic HD packages. BBC America is not part of most basic packages and BBC America HD is hardly available with any of the cable/fiber/satellite providers.
Sure, BBC America promotes the series more than SyFy did but that really does not matter since BBC America cannot even equal the ratings SyFy got - with hardly any promotion - even when BBC America combines 3 different airings as a single rating statistic.
And it is totally ridiculous that BBC America, a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of BBC Worldwide, cannot televise the show on the same day as it does in the UK. They were only a day or so behind the BBC proper with the inferior Torchwood - Children of Earth miniseries a year ago.
I really do not like the fact that the BBC is allowing BBC America to use the show as a means to build a following for the entire channel at the expense of growing the show's own fan base. It certainly didn't work well for UPN a decade ago when they did the same with Star Trek Voyager...
Unfortunately, in a rather odd true Hollywood story, that entire set was stolen from the lot. No one knows what happened to it. It is a shame as it rather grew on me during that movie. Shame they never did any more 8th doctor (video) stories.
Considering the set probably would've been destroyed had it not been stolen, that's probably a good thing.
The Console itself is presently in California. See here...
As for it being a shame that there were no further 8th Doctor adventures on-screen, blame the cheap-o's at the BBC who wouldn't bring the show back on its own after Fox and Universal opted not to participate. Add to that the BBC and RTD not bringing Paul McGann back once the show did return to screens in 2005.
While Matt Smith seems capable of playing the Doctor, the new TARDIS on the other hand really was disappointing.
I'm sorry but a pinball plunger, an old typewriter and a decor that looks ripped from a kid TV show just doesn't suit the supposedly alien look of the inside of the TARDIS. Too many earth parts, levers and buttons too obvious. The new TARDIS is a pale joke compared to the previous one.
I'm assuming you meant the TARDIS Console Room that was used all throughout the time RTD was the producer. That Console Room was a joke compared to the incredible Gothic/Steampunk Console Room shown in the 1996 TV Movie, thank you very much.
I will agree with you on the typewriter. I'm much prefer it to be an Atari ST or an Amiga, although I am sure there would be many that would say it should be a BBC Micro instead.
I wouldn't say the founding of the United States was all that radical. We almost ended up with King George III's son as the new nation's king. The motion only lost by one vote. Noah Webster - founder of Webster's Dictionary - was a strong proponent of an "independent" American monarchy directly related to the British monarchy just as the Bourbons ruled Spain and France. This is not taught in the K-12 public education system even for those students who actually care to learn about the nation's history.
The "President" as an Executive Office position was meant to be held for life and picked by the Senate*. That is pretty close to a kingship without the royal trappings.
The Senate was meant to ape the British House of Lords but without the hereditary peerage. For examples of this, see the Canadian Senate or the modern British House of Lords post-Tony Blair's so-called "reforms" via New Labour.
The House of Representatives was meant to ape the House of Commons. Granted, the House of Commons has more power than the House of Representatives does since the Commons has been more powerful than the Lords since WWI.
Any university level history course on early American history will point out these facts. Had our nation truly been founded in radicalism, then we would not have retained the English language as our - unofficial - language nor would we have retained the English Common Law as our legal system. We'd have some other radical government system resembling some of the ideas discussed during the earlier English Civil War that were squashed, like the proto-communism of the Diggers (not to be confused with the often left-leaning members of digg.com).
*The English/British Parliament had chosen its monarch more than once before the American Revolution so the selection of the American Executive Office by the Senate was not an example of revolutionary political reform.
I thought I'd chime in and ask the undying question of whether Microsoft had come to their senses and finally decided to give free upgrades to Windows Se7en for all legit consumer Vista users.
They could really win some good will back from their users if they did this...kinda like the free Zune* firmware updates for the original players...
*No, I am not a Microsoft apologist, Vista user, or Zune owner. I am typing this from my MacBook while taking a break from my PS3. I just think it would be a good idea for MS to do this for its users. It certainly would be more pro-active than their lame laptop commercials.
If it were up to me to decide, I would go for the broadest possible range of OSes: Windows, Mac, Linux, Unix, BSD, BeOS....
If you are going to advocate BeOS then I am going to mention AmigaOS 4.1. Both operating systems have open source alternatives but AmigaOS is still being developed commercially...and I make that recommendation as an old-school Atari ST enthusiast.
Imagine what kind of buzz AmigaOS would get if the Dalai Lama used it...
But back to reality...While I'd have to agree that Linux would be more secure than Windows, the fact that the Chinese government has invested quite a few resources into it might be a good enough reason not to use it.
"Since when is it the job of businesses in the unskilled labor market to implement social programs? If you want socialism, have to government do it themselves. Having businesses do it makes no sense, and has the effect of artificially tripling the prices of crap like coffee."
Then perhaps you should argue that no company should pay for any type of employee benefits because that's an artificial price you as a consumer pay every time you purchase something. The other problem with the attitude you profess here is that it lets companies like Wal*Mart off the hook and then dump the responsibilities onto government which means higher taxation for all of us. Wal*Mart doesn't pay their employees that well so the employees qualify for the Food Stamp program, which you and I pay for. Since Wal*Mart doesn't offer decent health care, the employees qualify for Medi-Caid which again you and I have to pay for through our taxes. There is a reason why corporations paid for such benefits before. The late 19th Century Corporate Titans were scared to death of socialism, so they began offering benefits to their employees to retard the socialist movement. It worked. But now, various right-wing talking heads and corporations themselves are forgetting about this "social contract" that they formerly subscribed to which actually might bring about socialism due to their severe short-sightedness.
Point is, people will buy "crap coffee" while you aren't forced to. And thus only the people who want that coffee will pay for the subsidized cost of employee health care, not the entire taxpaying public.
"You want benefits and a good salary? Learn to do something more complicated than pouring coffee."
I bet you think a waitress really owes you if you give them a 10% tip for exceptional service. And just for the record, the drinks at Starbucks are much more complicated than pouring coffee. Using your logic, perhaps we should just have the entire society shave their heads and get rid of barbers and hair stylists alike.
"Beside, on many items, the reduced price at walmart isn't all that much lower than at other retailers. And as previous posts and TFA points out, a lot of it is brand-named junk anyway."
Arguably, it would be very easy to merge BestBuy into Wal*Mart given how both companies treat their employees (bestbuysux.org). Granted, if I'm not mistaken, BestBuy's managers have much better compensation than Wal*Mart managers, but how the actual sales staff is treated, its comparable.
"Judging from the prevalence of Starbucks and people willing to pay $4 for their latte, I'd say many people seem ot disagree with you! Personally, I'd say Starbucks coffee isn't crap, it's just priced about 2-3x too high. I can get an equally good cup of coffee at a donut or bagel shop for $1.25-$1.75."
Starbucks prices are higher than other coffee shops because not only is the coffee better (IMHO), but they also actually pay their employees decently compared to their competitors. One of my friends worked part-time for them back in 2001 while attending law school. Starbucks pay starting out was $9/hr. Add to that health care, tuition reimbursement, and stock options.
After I learned that, I had to laugh at the local Mom 'n Pop coffee shop that was intimidated by Starbucks opening across the street from them. Did the Mom 'n Pop pay their employees more than minimum wage? Nope. Health care? Nope. Other bennies? Nope.
So please do not compare Starbucks to Wal*Mart (or a local donut/bagel shop). Starbucks offers finer quality than Wal*Mart does, and its also a more socially responsible company than Wal*Mart ever will be without the government forcing such behavior upon it. Starbucks is to Wal*Mart what OS X is to Windows.
If anyone is planning on recording the new-to-America *Doctor Who* episodes starting on Friday, March 17, 2006 from 9pm-11pm on the SciFi Channel and plan on making a Season Pass for the show, read this...
TiVo is "correctly" labeling the show's information with the BBC's original airdates from last year instead of the American premiere dates as being "new". Consequently, if you set the Season Pass to only record "first run" (aka "new") episodes, your TiVo won't record them even when they are first shown here on SciFi.
Feel free to complain to TiVo about the inconvenience even if they are technically correct. You can cite how they misreported the original air dates to the animated *Spider-Man* show from the 90s that originally aired on Fox. When the ABC Family Channel bought the repeat rights, TiVo used the "new" air dates for ABC Family. This caused confusion for many people who mistakenly thought there was a "new" Spider-Man cartoon on ABC Family.
The irony that a television show about a legendary time traveler would trip up the time-shifting TiVos.
"the only reason to keep that cash is to help you grow your business(not buy an aging and struggling Disney IMO), but Apple seems to keep an insane amount on hand. If you aren't going to do anything with it why not return it to the shareholders via dividends? Apple doesn't even pay dividends, and it's not like paying dividends is totally unknown in this business. Microsoft was dragged into doing it recently, and hell, even Nintendo does it(not a whole lot, but it's something!)"
I'd rather see Apple acquire some great technology with that cash on hand. Say for example TiVo, or Danger (Sidekicks I, II, & III), or even privately held Roxio (for Toast/Jam and a large market share on the Windows side with Easy Media Creator software). We should all remember that Microsoft horded cash for years until its growth started to stagnate/mature, not to mention attracted adventurous litigation hoping to make Microsoft part with that large pile of money through the settlement process. When Apple has $60 billion in the bank, then it will be time to start pressuring them to pay stock dividends.
Gawd, would I love to see Apple acquire both Atari Inc. (aka Infogrames USA) and Midway in order to reunify all that is "Atari" under one roof again, last seen together circa June 1984.
"Remember when Comcast was going to buy Disney..."
Comcast should be banned from buying any more companies for at least ten years after their track record with G4 and their acquisition of TechTV. They've burned through at least $1 billion in Comcast shareholder money on that failure already.
"It fits none of Apple's agendas to do so, in fact it would create numerous difficulties for both companies. Instead, it would be better to break up Disney into new pieces that reflect operating income better, just like Icahn was trying to do to Time Warner AOL."
Carl Icahn sucks. He has proposed nothing new concerning future scenarios with Time Warner than has not already been addressed by other shareholders and the board. He did not come up with the idea to spin off the Time Warner Cable division. That was already on the table before he even showed up on the scene.
Carl Icahn does what is best for Carl Icahn and nothing else. He got his azz handed to him when he tried to acquire Marvel a few short years ago...
"NBC would still make money, and Apple would still make a commission, from sales of its shows in iTMS, even if a whole bunch of Disney/Pixar movies suddlenly showed up one day. So no, I don't think it would preclude anything."
NBC - aka NBC Universal - does what is best for its majority shareholder, GE. Since the tenure of Jack Welch, GE has strived to place itself at #1 and #2 of any industry it competes in. If a division does not achieve those rankings, GE gets out of that business. Thus, according to that philosophy, NBC Universal won't knee-jerk drop its content from the iTunes Store just because Apple and Disney might merge, because there's no other online store that comes close to iTunes and thus NBC Universal would not make as much as they currently do with iTunes if they switched to another offering.
If anything, judging from the current media company trend, if Apple and Disney merged, the former Capital Cities/ABC division would be spun off, just as Viacom split itself back into the separate entities of CBS and Viacom to appease shareholders.
Btw, I'm in agreement with your post...I'm just adding further support to counter any contrary replies.
"How is that different from Sony, which produces content and has an online store?"
Because Apple's online store is successful (in fact, the dominant online music store) and Sony's (Sony Connect) is not...:)
What everyone also seems to forget - especially with the Sony rootkit debacle - is that Sony's music division is only 50% owned by them. They merged Sony Music with BMG's holdings to create SonyBMG, co-owned by both companies.
Here's a shoutout for the Atari 1040ST... I had a computer with a megabyte of memory in 1987 that cost about the same amount of money as an Apple IIe decked out. I really wish it would have caught on more here the States because none of my own friends - outside of the local Atari computer club - had one. They all had Commodore 128s with the exception of another friend who had an Apple IIc.
My cousins got my 1040ST when I migrated up to the Falcon before the death spiral of Atari Corp.'s computer line. I then transitioned over to the PC - because it looked like the Mac was doomed - in 1996 with a Pentium clone built at a "screwdriver shop". In mid 2003, when my parents finally wanted to learn how to use computers and the internet, I insisted they buy a Mac (an eMac in fact) because their prior experience with one of the PCs I built turned out to be a nightmare. I intend to fully switch over to OSX myself this year, perhaps when the Intel powered iBook replacements arrive...
my thoughts from what I posted on Digg
on
Hope Fading at Atari
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Atari is like the Doctor (Doctor Who), this incarnation might die but it will be back after it regenerates. And thanks to all the confusion and due to my namesake and former shareholder in the older Atari, I will clear up the misconceptions.
The original Atari was founded in 1972 by Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney. After the lack of success with Bushnell's adaptation of the MIT "Spacewar" game as an arcade title called "Computer Space" manufactured by Nutting Associates, Bushnell wanted to make an easier electronic arcade game. Atari's "Pong" came next, programmed by the great Al Alcorn. True, it was an updated version of a game that Ralph Baer created (but his version sucked) and it became an overnight sensation.
Prior to 1976, Steve Jobs worked for Atari and Jobs would sneak in Steve Wozniak to help him do designs in return for Wozniak getting to play as much "Night Driver" as possible. Depending upon the account told, Wozniak was or was not an actual employee of Atari. The pair took parts from Atari and used it to work on what later became the Apple I.
By 1976, Atari was an established arcade player but it needed funding to finish designing what became the Atari 2600 VCS, the world's most successful home videogame system. Bushnell sold the company to Warner Communications, thanks to its charismatic chairman, Steve Ross. Money had been so tight that Bushnell had to pass on Steve Jobs' offer to fund and own what became Apple Computer, Inc., but Bushnell hooked Jobs up with the venture capitalist that had helped him, and the rest is Apple history. Bushnell stayed on with Atari until 1979 when he left because he did not see eye-to-eye with the Warner brass. Both were equally at fault in the equation; Bushnell for insisting that the 2600 VCS didn't have a much longer shelf life, and Warners for not backing Bushnell's suggestion to quickly fund the development of its replacement. Add to the fact that Bushnell had never backed the creation of the Atari Pinball division which Warner wanted, which later closed, and you have more of the picture of what happened. When Bushnell left, he bought back a new Atari division that he personally created, known as (Chuck E. Cheese's) Pizza Time Theatre.
In 1980, Atari's brass wanted to consolidate all their U.S. operations into a single Silicon Valley campus...which would have cost $500 million. Warner buckled. So instead, Atari went on to sprawl throughout the Valley into 72 different buildings, which was a cost waste. 1979/1980 also saw Atari's debut with the Jay Miner engineered Atari 8-bit computer line, the 400 and 800 computers which ran rings around the Apples, the Commodores, and all other home computers of that time in the graphics and sound departments. Miner later left when the Atari brass refused to fund the project he was pushing for which was creating a home computer based up Motorola's new microprocessor, the Motorola 68000. Miner went on to create what became the Amiga, which like the Apple Macintosh and the later Atari ST, was powered by that very same Motorola 68000.
79/80 also saw Atari programmers split over a disagreement with Atari boss Ray Kasser. They went on to found Activision, the world's first third party videogame developer. However, since most of their first games were coded during their time when they were paid Atari employees, Atari sued and the settlement dictated that Atari got a portion of the profits off each of their games sold. There was no model for third party licensing/restrictions at this time - with the exception of VHS and Beta in the home video industry - and Atari had between 80% and 90% of the home video game market AND the arcade (AND a sizeable portion of the home computer market) and thus had Atari attempted anything as such the government would have stepped in and broken up the company just as they were about to do to AT&T. Now compare the Atari monopoly to the later Nintendo monopoly. Atari's monopoly was a "natural monopoly". Atari had no control on any third party manufacturers. The only claim that
"It is also widely known that compared to other men, American men have by far the smallest penises in the world. They try to make up for their genital deficit by driving the biggest, nosiest vehicles they can debt themselves into."
Wow, you are both delusional and ironic at the same time. Funny thing is, the average American condom is larger than its European counterpart. First, the German government complained to the European Union about the size of American condoms being too large. Once the European Union finalized the standards EU wide for condoms, again the German government complained about the condoms being too large.
So much about your fantasy about deficient American penile size.
"Credentials don't mean as much as you appear to think they do. Taken en masse 5000 PhDs just means that the bullshit gets piled even higher and deeper."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, its definitely a children's show. that's why its broadcast on pre prime-time slot on holidays, and then on Saturdays in the 5-6pm slot. That's typically before the sports start. Incidentally, its the same time-slot that the A-Team was broadcast, so you can kind of see the target audience age (and the reason why there's always some form of totty sidekick present for the Dads who have to watch it with their kids)
However, I think the 'modern' doctor series have done remarkably well in appealing to an older audience as well.
That's part of the viewing differences between the UK and the US. The A-Team was always televised in the 8pm time slot back on NBC, not 5pm or 6pm as in the UK.
As others have stated, plenty of us US fans grew up watching Doctor Who on PBS stations that generally televised it beginning at 10pm on Saturdays. That's how I remember it. And since for the most part they focused on the Tom Baker era, it was rather dark and creepy enough to give the impression that it was a show for adults. One of the first episodes I saw - when I was 10 - was "State of Decay" and that was creepy. Hell, "The Keeper of Traken" was creepy too.
Looks like the new season finally starts on April 17 at 9 eastern here in the States.
I find it "amusing" that BBC America is scheduling the show in the 9pm time slot which Julie Gardner - the previous producer of the show - complained about when SyFy scheduled it in the same time slot on Fridays right before Battlestar Galactica. That was a kick a$$ night of scifi for me and plenty of other fans...
That makes this significant because up until now, only specials were done in HD. The BBC had previously said it was too expensive to make Doctor Who in HD due to all the special effects, so obviously we've reached a turning point where the money made from selling overseas has made it viable in HD. Win.
It would be nice to see it legally in HD here in the U.S. but unfortunately, stupid BBC America HD is pretty much only available on Time Warner Cable and not Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Dish, or DirecTV. Had the show remained on SyFy where it belonged, many more fans could be watching it in HD courtesy of SyFy HD being a basic HD channel in most markets...
Perhaps they won't gouge the PBS stations in a year and it may air on some of them in HD.
The TARDIS has always been unreliable (when the plot demanded it). The in story reasons are something to do with the idea that the TARDIS was already old, unreliable and in for repair when the Doctor "borrowed" it a few centuries ago, it also explains why it's stuck in the form of a 1960s police box - the chameleon circuit being broken. Having an imperfect TARDIS has allowed for some good stories during the history of the show so I don't think they'd want to have it ever fully be fixed - even if it can repair itself to some extent (again perfect for allowing a new set to be constructed when old ones wouldn't work for HD)
My own personal theory is the TARDIS belonged to The Doctor's father and after he went missing and the Time Lords covered it up, The Doctor stole it...
BBC Worldwide should also be looking into posting Classic Doctor Who on Hulu and/or YouTube. The same goes for the 1996 TV Movie - which has never been released on DVD here in the U.S. - and S1-S4... Of course, these ideas would require brain power that seems to be lacking within that organization...
...Everyone who is in the US and saw the premiere last night please raise your hand now in a two fingered salute to whoever the executives are that have decided they still can't give us same day showing of Doctor Who on BBC America!
Screw BBC America. The show should be back on SyFy where it belongs here in the States.
SyFy is usually part of the basic cable package of most providers and the HD channel is usually part of the basic HD packages. BBC America is not part of most basic packages and BBC America HD is hardly available with any of the cable/fiber/satellite providers.
Sure, BBC America promotes the series more than SyFy did but that really does not matter since BBC America cannot even equal the ratings SyFy got - with hardly any promotion - even when BBC America combines 3 different airings as a single rating statistic.
And it is totally ridiculous that BBC America, a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of BBC Worldwide, cannot televise the show on the same day as it does in the UK. They were only a day or so behind the BBC proper with the inferior Torchwood - Children of Earth miniseries a year ago.
I really do not like the fact that the BBC is allowing BBC America to use the show as a means to build a following for the entire channel at the expense of growing the show's own fan base. It certainly didn't work well for UPN a decade ago when they did the same with Star Trek Voyager...
The Doctor is 900 years old. There are dozens of seasons.
Start with 2005, work forward. THEN go back and watch some of the classics. I like Tom Baker, but an Unearthly child is also worth a look.
Also, if you've seen even one episode, this is priceless.
The Doctor was over 950 years old when the Classic Series ended in 1989. He's been a liar about his age ever since.
Unfortunately, in a rather odd true Hollywood story, that entire set was stolen from the lot. No one knows what happened to it. It is a shame as it rather grew on me during that movie. Shame they never did any more 8th doctor (video) stories.
Considering the set probably would've been destroyed had it not been stolen, that's probably a good thing.
The Console itself is presently in California. See here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q98nJsXLCY&feature=channel
As for it being a shame that there were no further 8th Doctor adventures on-screen, blame the cheap-o's at the BBC who wouldn't bring the show back on its own after Fox and Universal opted not to participate. Add to that the BBC and RTD not bringing Paul McGann back once the show did return to screens in 2005.
While Matt Smith seems capable of playing the Doctor, the new TARDIS on the other hand really was disappointing.
I'm sorry but a pinball plunger, an old typewriter and a decor that looks ripped from a kid TV show just doesn't suit the supposedly alien look of the inside of the TARDIS. Too many earth parts, levers and buttons too obvious. The new TARDIS is a pale joke compared to the previous one.
I'm assuming you meant the TARDIS Console Room that was used all throughout the time RTD was the producer. That Console Room was a joke compared to the incredible Gothic/Steampunk Console Room shown in the 1996 TV Movie, thank you very much.
I will agree with you on the typewriter. I'm much prefer it to be an Atari ST or an Amiga, although I am sure there would be many that would say it should be a BBC Micro instead.
I wouldn't say the founding of the United States was all that radical. We almost ended up with King George III's son as the new nation's king. The motion only lost by one vote. Noah Webster - founder of Webster's Dictionary - was a strong proponent of an "independent" American monarchy directly related to the British monarchy just as the Bourbons ruled Spain and France. This is not taught in the K-12 public education system even for those students who actually care to learn about the nation's history.
The "President" as an Executive Office position was meant to be held for life and picked by the Senate*. That is pretty close to a kingship without the royal trappings.
The Senate was meant to ape the British House of Lords but without the hereditary peerage. For examples of this, see the Canadian Senate or the modern British House of Lords post-Tony Blair's so-called "reforms" via New Labour.
The House of Representatives was meant to ape the House of Commons. Granted, the House of Commons has more power than the House of Representatives does since the Commons has been more powerful than the Lords since WWI.
Any university level history course on early American history will point out these facts. Had our nation truly been founded in radicalism, then we would not have retained the English language as our - unofficial - language nor would we have retained the English Common Law as our legal system. We'd have some other radical government system resembling some of the ideas discussed during the earlier English Civil War that were squashed, like the proto-communism of the Diggers (not to be confused with the often left-leaning members of digg.com).
*The English/British Parliament had chosen its monarch more than once before the American Revolution so the selection of the American Executive Office by the Senate was not an example of revolutionary political reform.
I thought I'd chime in and ask the undying question of whether Microsoft had come to their senses and finally decided to give free upgrades to Windows Se7en for all legit consumer Vista users.
They could really win some good will back from their users if they did this...kinda like the free Zune* firmware updates for the original players...
*No, I am not a Microsoft apologist, Vista user, or Zune owner. I am typing this from my MacBook while taking a break from my PS3. I just think it would be a good idea for MS to do this for its users. It certainly would be more pro-active than their lame laptop commercials.
If it were up to me to decide, I would go for the broadest possible range of OSes: Windows, Mac, Linux, Unix, BSD, BeOS....
If you are going to advocate BeOS then I am going to mention AmigaOS 4.1. Both operating systems have open source alternatives but AmigaOS is still being developed commercially...and I make that recommendation as an old-school Atari ST enthusiast.
Imagine what kind of buzz AmigaOS would get if the Dalai Lama used it...
But back to reality...While I'd have to agree that Linux would be more secure than Windows, the fact that the Chinese government has invested quite a few resources into it might be a good enough reason not to use it.
Why isn't anyone suggesting Open Solaris?
"Since when is it the job of businesses in the unskilled labor market to implement social programs? If you want socialism, have to government do it themselves. Having businesses do it makes no sense, and has the effect of artificially tripling the prices of crap like coffee."
Then perhaps you should argue that no company should pay for any type of employee benefits because that's an artificial price you as a consumer pay every time you purchase something. The other problem with the attitude you profess here is that it lets companies like Wal*Mart off the hook and then dump the responsibilities onto government which means higher taxation for all of us. Wal*Mart doesn't pay their employees that well so the employees qualify for the Food Stamp program, which you and I pay for. Since Wal*Mart doesn't offer decent health care, the employees qualify for Medi-Caid which again you and I have to pay for through our taxes. There is a reason why corporations paid for such benefits before. The late 19th Century Corporate Titans were scared to death of socialism, so they began offering benefits to their employees to retard the socialist movement. It worked. But now, various right-wing talking heads and corporations themselves are forgetting about this "social contract" that they formerly subscribed to which actually might bring about socialism due to their severe short-sightedness.
Point is, people will buy "crap coffee" while you aren't forced to. And thus only the people who want that coffee will pay for the subsidized cost of employee health care, not the entire taxpaying public.
"You want benefits and a good salary? Learn to do something more complicated than pouring coffee."
I bet you think a waitress really owes you if you give them a 10% tip for exceptional service. And just for the record, the drinks at Starbucks are much more complicated than pouring coffee. Using your logic, perhaps we should just have the entire society shave their heads and get rid of barbers and hair stylists alike.
"Beside, on many items, the reduced price at walmart isn't all that much lower than at other retailers. And as previous posts and TFA points out, a lot of it is brand-named junk anyway."
Arguably, it would be very easy to merge BestBuy into Wal*Mart given how both companies treat their employees (bestbuysux.org). Granted, if I'm not mistaken, BestBuy's managers have much better compensation than Wal*Mart managers, but how the actual sales staff is treated, its comparable.
"Judging from the prevalence of Starbucks and people willing to pay $4 for their latte, I'd say many people seem ot disagree with you! Personally, I'd say Starbucks coffee isn't crap, it's just priced about 2-3x too high. I can get an equally good cup of coffee at a donut or bagel shop for $1.25-$1.75."
Starbucks prices are higher than other coffee shops because not only is the coffee better (IMHO), but they also actually pay their employees decently compared to their competitors. One of my friends worked part-time for them back in 2001 while attending law school. Starbucks pay starting out was $9/hr. Add to that health care, tuition reimbursement, and stock options.
After I learned that, I had to laugh at the local Mom 'n Pop coffee shop that was intimidated by Starbucks opening across the street from them. Did the Mom 'n Pop pay their employees more than minimum wage? Nope. Health care? Nope. Other bennies? Nope.
So please do not compare Starbucks to Wal*Mart (or a local donut/bagel shop). Starbucks offers finer quality than Wal*Mart does, and its also a more socially responsible company than Wal*Mart ever will be without the government forcing such behavior upon it. Starbucks is to Wal*Mart what OS X is to Windows.
If anyone is planning on recording the new-to-America *Doctor Who* episodes starting on Friday, March 17, 2006 from 9pm-11pm on the SciFi Channel and plan on making a Season Pass for the show, read this...
TiVo is "correctly" labeling the show's information with the BBC's original airdates from last year instead of the American premiere dates as being "new". Consequently, if you set the Season Pass to only record "first run" (aka "new") episodes, your TiVo won't record them even when they are first shown here on SciFi.
Feel free to complain to TiVo about the inconvenience even if they are technically correct. You can cite how they misreported the original air dates to the animated *Spider-Man* show from the 90s that originally aired on Fox. When the ABC Family Channel bought the repeat rights, TiVo used the "new" air dates for ABC Family. This caused confusion for many people who mistakenly thought there was a "new" Spider-Man cartoon on ABC Family.
The irony that a television show about a legendary time traveler would trip up the time-shifting TiVos.
"the only reason to keep that cash is to help you grow your business(not buy an aging and struggling Disney IMO), but Apple seems to keep an insane amount on hand. If you aren't going to do anything with it why not return it to the shareholders via dividends? Apple doesn't even pay dividends, and it's not like paying dividends is totally unknown in this business. Microsoft was dragged into doing it recently, and hell, even Nintendo does it(not a whole lot, but it's something!)"
I'd rather see Apple acquire some great technology with that cash on hand. Say for example TiVo, or Danger (Sidekicks I, II, & III), or even privately held Roxio (for Toast/Jam and a large market share on the Windows side with Easy Media Creator software). We should all remember that Microsoft horded cash for years until its growth started to stagnate/mature, not to mention attracted adventurous litigation hoping to make Microsoft part with that large pile of money through the settlement process. When Apple has $60 billion in the bank, then it will be time to start pressuring them to pay stock dividends.
Gawd, would I love to see Apple acquire both Atari Inc. (aka Infogrames USA) and Midway in order to reunify all that is "Atari" under one roof again, last seen together circa June 1984.
"Remember when Comcast was going to buy Disney..."
Comcast should be banned from buying any more companies for at least ten years after their track record with G4 and their acquisition of TechTV. They've burned through at least $1 billion in Comcast shareholder money on that failure already.
"It fits none of Apple's agendas to do so, in fact it would create numerous difficulties for both companies. Instead, it would be better to break up Disney into new pieces that reflect operating income better, just like Icahn was trying to do to Time Warner AOL."
Carl Icahn sucks. He has proposed nothing new concerning future scenarios with Time Warner than has not already been addressed by other shareholders and the board. He did not come up with the idea to spin off the Time Warner Cable division. That was already on the table before he even showed up on the scene.
Carl Icahn does what is best for Carl Icahn and nothing else. He got his azz handed to him when he tried to acquire Marvel a few short years ago...
"NBC would still make money, and Apple would still make a commission, from sales of its shows in iTMS, even if a whole bunch of Disney/Pixar movies suddlenly showed up one day. So no, I don't think it would preclude anything."
NBC - aka NBC Universal - does what is best for its majority shareholder, GE. Since the tenure of Jack Welch, GE has strived to place itself at #1 and #2 of any industry it competes in. If a division does not achieve those rankings, GE gets out of that business. Thus, according to that philosophy, NBC Universal won't knee-jerk drop its content from the iTunes Store just because Apple and Disney might merge, because there's no other online store that comes close to iTunes and thus NBC Universal would not make as much as they currently do with iTunes if they switched to another offering.
If anything, judging from the current media company trend, if Apple and Disney merged, the former Capital Cities/ABC division would be spun off, just as Viacom split itself back into the separate entities of CBS and Viacom to appease shareholders.
Btw, I'm in agreement with your post...I'm just adding further support to counter any contrary replies.
"How is that different from Sony, which produces content and has an online store?"
:)
Because Apple's online store is successful (in fact, the dominant online music store) and Sony's (Sony Connect) is not...
What everyone also seems to forget - especially with the Sony rootkit debacle - is that Sony's music division is only 50% owned by them. They merged Sony Music with BMG's holdings to create SonyBMG, co-owned by both companies.
Here's a shoutout for the Atari 1040ST... I had a computer with a megabyte of memory in 1987 that cost about the same amount of money as an Apple IIe decked out. I really wish it would have caught on more here the States because none of my own friends - outside of the local Atari computer club - had one. They all had Commodore 128s with the exception of another friend who had an Apple IIc.
My cousins got my 1040ST when I migrated up to the Falcon before the death spiral of Atari Corp.'s computer line. I then transitioned over to the PC - because it looked like the Mac was doomed - in 1996 with a Pentium clone built at a "screwdriver shop". In mid 2003, when my parents finally wanted to learn how to use computers and the internet, I insisted they buy a Mac (an eMac in fact) because their prior experience with one of the PCs I built turned out to be a nightmare. I intend to fully switch over to OSX myself this year, perhaps when the Intel powered iBook replacements arrive...
Atari is like the Doctor (Doctor Who), this incarnation might die but it will be back after it regenerates. And thanks to all the confusion and due to my namesake and former shareholder in the older Atari, I will clear up the misconceptions.
The original Atari was founded in 1972 by Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney. After the lack of success with Bushnell's adaptation of the MIT "Spacewar" game as an arcade title called "Computer Space" manufactured by Nutting Associates, Bushnell wanted to make an easier electronic arcade game. Atari's "Pong" came next, programmed by the great Al Alcorn. True, it was an updated version of a game that Ralph Baer created (but his version sucked) and it became an overnight sensation.
Prior to 1976, Steve Jobs worked for Atari and Jobs would sneak in Steve Wozniak to help him do designs in return for Wozniak getting to play as much "Night Driver" as possible. Depending upon the account told, Wozniak was or was not an actual employee of Atari. The pair took parts from Atari and used it to work on what later became the Apple I.
By 1976, Atari was an established arcade player but it needed funding to finish designing what became the Atari 2600 VCS, the world's most successful home videogame system. Bushnell sold the company to Warner Communications, thanks to its charismatic chairman, Steve Ross. Money had been so tight that Bushnell had to pass on Steve Jobs' offer to fund and own what became Apple Computer, Inc., but Bushnell hooked Jobs up with the venture capitalist that had helped him, and the rest is Apple history. Bushnell stayed on with Atari until 1979 when he left because he did not see eye-to-eye with the Warner brass. Both were equally at fault in the equation; Bushnell for insisting that the 2600 VCS didn't have a much longer shelf life, and Warners for not backing Bushnell's suggestion to quickly fund the development of its replacement. Add to the fact that Bushnell had never backed the creation of the Atari Pinball division which Warner wanted, which later closed, and you have more of the picture of what happened. When Bushnell left, he bought back a new Atari division that he personally created, known as (Chuck E. Cheese's) Pizza Time Theatre.
In 1980, Atari's brass wanted to consolidate all their U.S. operations into a single Silicon Valley campus...which would have cost $500 million. Warner buckled. So instead, Atari went on to sprawl throughout the Valley into 72 different buildings, which was a cost waste. 1979/1980 also saw Atari's debut with the Jay Miner engineered Atari 8-bit computer line, the 400 and 800 computers which ran rings around the Apples, the Commodores, and all other home computers of that time in the graphics and sound departments. Miner later left when the Atari brass refused to fund the project he was pushing for which was creating a home computer based up Motorola's new microprocessor, the Motorola 68000. Miner went on to create what became the Amiga, which like the Apple Macintosh and the later Atari ST, was powered by that very same Motorola 68000.
79/80 also saw Atari programmers split over a disagreement with Atari boss Ray Kasser. They went on to found Activision, the world's first third party videogame developer. However, since most of their first games were coded during their time when they were paid Atari employees, Atari sued and the settlement dictated that Atari got a portion of the profits off each of their games sold. There was no model for third party licensing/restrictions at this time - with the exception of VHS and Beta in the home video industry - and Atari had between 80% and 90% of the home video game market AND the arcade (AND a sizeable portion of the home computer market) and thus had Atari attempted anything as such the government would have stepped in and broken up the company just as they were about to do to AT&T. Now compare the Atari monopoly to the later Nintendo monopoly. Atari's monopoly was a "natural monopoly". Atari had no control on any third party manufacturers. The only claim that
"It is also widely known that compared to other men, American men have by far the smallest penises in the world. They try to make up for their genital deficit by driving the biggest, nosiest vehicles they can debt themselves into."
Wow, you are both delusional and ironic at the same time. Funny thing is, the average American condom is larger than its European counterpart. First, the German government complained to the European Union about the size of American condoms being too large. Once the European Union finalized the standards EU wide for condoms, again the German government complained about the condoms being too large.
So much about your fantasy about deficient American penile size.
"Credentials don't mean as much as you appear to think they do. Taken en masse 5000 PhDs just means that the bullshit gets piled even higher and deeper."
5000 PhDs, not 5000 MCSE certificate holders...