You don't. Story is more important than cannon. That doesn't mean you can just urinate all over cannon to make something interesting but as long as you're keeping withing established characterizations and more or less keeping the appropriate chain of events in place, overlooking Kelley's cameo in TNG is far less a crime than introducing the Borg to the Bakula Enterprise crew. I'd take the continuity hit in exchange for seeing Kirk and Spock dealing with the death of McCoy. At the very least, the writers could just ignore the situation. That's the typical Dr. Who answer for handling continuity problems and I've been very happy with it over the years.
Dilution only happens when you mix a weak product in with a stronger one. If they can make this project a good one, then they are not diluting Star Trek.
Not only were they "the perfect balance of differing personalities," they were also the right number of characters to focus on in a show that is situationally driven instead of character driven. When the focus of the show is some new weekly visit to an alien world, trying to spread focus to 10-15 characters like they did in TNG really didn't work for me. I don't really care what happens to Diana Troy or the Crusher family or even to Worf or Kunta Kinte (or Toby or LaForge or whatever you call him). Sure they need screen time, but it seems like TNG spent entirely too much time delving deeply into too many characters' lives. I really liked that TOS had three main characters and the rest were important but certainly secondary.
Personally, I'd rather see post-TOS but pre-TNG Star Trek, maroon uniforms and all. Kirk and Spock could be older (which works out for the actors who are older themselves now) and the movie could be set closer to the most popular (in terms of movie revenue) stint in Star Trek history. I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from Trek prequels thanks to First Contact and Enterprise.
I guess by "you" you don't mean me since I cited 10-20. Even hour long shows like Desperate Housewives tend to complete in about 20 minutes.
"a regular DVD takes too long"
I can torrent a regular DVD image in about two hours or so on my DSL line provided it's relatively popular DVD.
"HD content is out of the question"
Hence the "happy medium" I mentioned. We can probably get something of reasonable quality for an HDTV to fit into a format that can be downloaded overnight at worst on broadband.
People said the same thing about keyboard and mouse for FPS games a few years ago. While that may be ideal, there are a large number of FPS games on consoles nowadays and most of them play just fine. Just because nobody has figured out a good way to translate MMOG controls to a console controller yet doesn't mean they won't be able to in the future.
As much as folks might be up in arms over the superiority of one format or another, don't forget that there may be a third player in this race: on-line distribution. You can get TV shows off of iTunes now and download them in about 10-20 minutes. How long until movies see a similar distribution that actually works well. Sure they'll have to be higher quality than what iTunes offers for TV but I imagine that a happy medium between size and quality could be met, even for the HD crowd. When there's a decent on-line distribution method, a decent user interface to go with it, and a relatively inexpensive and easy way to get that video onto a TV, then this Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD war will be largely irrelevant.
I thought the whole Duo Core thing was an Symetric MP system. As such, I was under the impression that it doesn't run one task on one processor and another task on the other processor. I thought it just distributed the workload as evenly as possible across the two processors regardless of how many processes are running. That's wouldn't really lead to a game on one proc and scan on the other proc scenario the article implies, or am I missing something and/or assuming incorrectly?
Linux snobs or not, there's no big barrier to entry on Linux. The installer is a piece of cake for most distros, most Linux distros can get most hardware set up in at least a usuable state, and the window managers installed by default now are almost as easy (if not easier) to use than Windows built-in window manager. My wife can very comfortably use Linux as can my neighbor who used to come over occasionally to use the Internet since she didn't have a computer of her own at the time. There wasn't a massive learning curve to usage and I don't even think she even knew she was using Linux.
Why aren't people coming over? They don't want to. As someone who used to install Linux on all my computers a few years ago, I now use XP almost exclusively at home. XP is almost as stable. I do have to reboot once in a while but who cares on a desktop machine? As long as I'm using Firefox to browse, I don't even have to worry about spyware too much (though I do run it weekly just in case). I keep a Linux box in the basement in case I ever need some sort of server or I'm evaluating some new programming language, but other than that I have no need for Linux on my desktop (which happens to be a laptop in this case). And for those things, I could always use Cygwin.
That's a two-way street though. If you are really interested in getting people to switch then you sure don't want some HDTV owner's neighbor, relative or friend to find out that their DVD collection will look WORSE on a new HDTV than it does on their old big screen. Best to let HDTV stand on its own merits than to cripple the other options.
"I seriously don't understand how people can claim to not be able to tell the difference."
I'm with you there. I really think the difference is noticeable but at the same time I don't think there are a whole lot of people who care about that noticable difference. What they have is good enough right now to not justify spending the extra money on HD. HDTV still isn't quite cheap enough yet, especially considering the sheer number of people who bought a big screen a few years ago during the big screen TV boom.
"Regular DVD's just look like trash on a large HD sceen"
That's usually because any NTSC signal looks like trash on an HDTV screen. Most manufacturers don't take the time to get a non-HD signal looking good on their TVs, which is unfortunate considering low-def video isn't going to just disappear any time soon. Upconverters on DVD players is a decent idea but the TV should be doing a good enough job of conversion that it's not neccessary.
Healthcare is not socialized for all people but it is socialized to an extent for the poor via Medicaid. Medicaid pays out less per person in proper benefits than it does to hospital emergency rooms who are compelled to treat patients who qualify for Medicaid but aren't registered. Massachusetts is even putting a system in place where hospitals determine whether or not their patients are eligible for Medicaid and then register them if they are. According to their studies, this will lead to a decrease in the amount of money Medicaid pays out yearly, not the increase you seem so sure to believe will happen.
"I assume you've never traveled anywhere where Wal-Mart is a major part of the economy."
You assume incorrectly. I have been to several places where Wal-Mart is a (if not the) major economic force but I've never been anywhere where Wal-Mart is the only place to get a job. Bentonville, Arkansas may be the only exception to this rule but I've never been there so I don't know. Even if such a place did exist, you can always move. You're not a slave if you shackle yourself.
Have you ever worked at a Wal-Mart? I have and while it's no picnic, the pay is decent for the job you do. Funny how I was able to leave that job with no reprecussions from Wal-Mart or worry about future employment. "Slave" indeed. If you want to equate the pay with the actual amount of work they do, Wal-Mart employees are often being paid far more than they deserve.
"It might not suprise you to find out that I've got intelligent, well-educated, think-outside-the-box type kids."
And you're calling me naive? Of course you think you're kids are smarter than most. Nobody thinks their kids a stupid. My kids could probably figure out a way into my office too but they respect and fear their father. I also have full support from my spouse. They know that when I'm working, an interruption of that work is not tolerated unless there is a real emergency. And for what it's worth, I don't lock my door. I don't need to. I do make sure to give them ample attention during lunch and breaks though.
"Novell has filed a motion to stay SCO's claims against Novell until the outcome of this arbitration. So now it looks like Linux users are protected both through the APA between Novell and SCO, but the UnitedLinux agreement as well."
No, it looks like Linux users are protected through both the APA and UnitedLinix depending on the outsome of this motion. You can file motions all you'd like. That doesn't mean they'll be carried out.
Do you bring your kids to the office with you? Then why are you expecting to watch them at home while you are working? Telecommuting is about working from home, not doing a few work-related tasks while you enjoy the rest of your day. It's about saving time and money on the commute and on office space. If you're getting distracted at home, then your home office is not set up properly or you're not working in that home office.
Your suggested pigeonholes do make more sense for games in established genres. What about games not in an established genre? Where do you really put Super Monkey Ball or Saturn Bomberman or even Burning Rangers? I do agree though that "Female", "Minority", or anything of that sort aren't good qualifiers but only because games geared towards those target demographics usually have an extremely low yield.
You refuse to support a company that helps its employess get the benefits they are entitled to? If more companies helped their employees register for Medicaid, then the number of uninsured people who qualify for Medicaid but aren't registered (20% of total uninsured population) would plummet.
"Slave labor" implies some sort of forced employment. Last I saw, Wal-Mart employees who aren't making enough money are free to leave for another job any time they'd like. The employees may complain about it but they're the ones who took the job at that wage to begin with. There are a lot of jobs that pay more than Wal-Mart, but generally speaking a Wal-Mart position pays as much as a similarly skilled position elsewhere. The only difference is that Wal-Mart employs a lot more unskilled labor than most other stores.
"Is price really the only issue to you as a consumer?"
No. There's also the quality of my shopping experience. That's why I usually spend a little more to shop at Target when I'm in the area of a Target. Their customer service is above and beyond Wal-Mart's. I also look at return policy on some items. Wal-Mart is the bomb when it comes to return policy. There's no such thing as adead pixel policy there and I haven't bought an automotive battery in years because I can just take mine back once a year before the warranty runs out.
I really don't care what Bob and Joe do with their spare time. I might not join Bob in a puppy-kicking contest but as long as he's selling cheap and he doesn't feel the need to interject his hobby into my shopping experience, I'll buy from Bob. I'll be sure to vote for Joe over Bob when selecting a citizen of the year though.
What you say would be true if there were some clear definition of "good game." It doesn't work that way though. Is Madden 06 a good game? I think it is but I'll wager there are plenty of people here who think it's not. Likewise, is Call of Duty 2 a good game? I don't think so but sales numbers disagree with me. The problem game developers face and the reason there is a qualifier in the first place for "gamer" is that different people find differrent things fun and enjoyable. Using a pigeon hole to try to corral as many gamers as they can into one definition of enjoyable goes a long way towards increasing game sales.
"getting paid the slave wages that mean he can only afford to buy at Wal-Mart"
Have you comparison shopped lately? Wal-Mart isn't even particularly cheap anymore. Most goods Wal-Mart sells can be had cheaper on-line. If not, then you can ususally at least get the same price for better quality on-line.
Wal-Mart's generic food label is horrible so if you buy generic items that are good and buy name brand for everything else, you'll wind up spending a lot more on groceries as compared to somewhere with a good generic label like Kroger. Wal-Mart's meat department is also hideously overpriced in our area. I can get most meats for at least $1/lb cheaper at Quality Foods.
My father-in-law used to run a Coleman Camper dealership. The camper supplies he sold were always cheaper than they were at Wal-Mart but he always had customers thinking they'd get a better price if they just waited until they went to wal-mart to get that kind of thing. More often than not, they'd sheepishly return to buy from him after seeing Wal-Mart's prices.
People get this idea in their heads that Wal-Mart is the cheapest place to get something. In this day and age with those massive Wal-Mart Supercenters they have to pay for, that's not always the case.
"Unfortunately, companies don't make the rules here. Consumers do."
You mispelled "fortunately" by putting an "un" in front of it. I sure don't want anyone else telling me where to shop or what to buy. If Wal-Mart has what I want at a good price, then I'll buy it there. If not, I'll get it somewhere else. Wal-Mart is on top of this game for a reason. The only thing they are dictating is what their customers will buy.
My work experience started in late 2001. The dot-com bubble had already burst and my professors spent a good chunk of my senior year warning us that the good times were over and it would be very hard to find a job right after graduation. I did find a job though. It paid a lot less (~= $7K per year less) than the only other offer I could find but the job I took was a jack of all trades position with the government that would at least get more experience under my belt than the other offer (UNIX support desk for a call center) which was much more of a "dead end." I stayed at the government job until the economy got better (even survived a round of layoffs with the government of all places) and then took another jack of all trades position that focused more on my preference: software development. I stayed there until I got the aforementioned job offer as a software developer (without all the other stuff like DB maintenance, tech support, and server maintenance to worry about).
In short, I had to do a lot of other stuff I wasn't interested in before I garnered enough experience to be a full-fledged software developer. If you want to be a DBA but don't have the experience, then you need to find a job where you can do what you do have experience for that has some DBA work to do on the side, even if you're only a backup to the regular DBA. You're right that you're not going to up and decide to be a DBA one day and find a company willing to pay to train on the job. Those days still haven't come back and probably never will again.
Slashdot Mirror
"how do you handle that?"
You don't. Story is more important than cannon. That doesn't mean you can just urinate all over cannon to make something interesting but as long as you're keeping withing established characterizations and more or less keeping the appropriate chain of events in place, overlooking Kelley's cameo in TNG is far less a crime than introducing the Borg to the Bakula Enterprise crew. I'd take the continuity hit in exchange for seeing Kirk and Spock dealing with the death of McCoy. At the very least, the writers could just ignore the situation. That's the typical Dr. Who answer for handling continuity problems and I've been very happy with it over the years.
Dilution only happens when you mix a weak product in with a stronger one. If they can make this project a good one, then they are not diluting Star Trek.
Not only were they "the perfect balance of differing personalities," they were also the right number of characters to focus on in a show that is situationally driven instead of character driven. When the focus of the show is some new weekly visit to an alien world, trying to spread focus to 10-15 characters like they did in TNG really didn't work for me. I don't really care what happens to Diana Troy or the Crusher family or even to Worf or Kunta Kinte (or Toby or LaForge or whatever you call him). Sure they need screen time, but it seems like TNG spent entirely too much time delving deeply into too many characters' lives. I really liked that TOS had three main characters and the rest were important but certainly secondary.
Personally, I'd rather see post-TOS but pre-TNG Star Trek, maroon uniforms and all. Kirk and Spock could be older (which works out for the actors who are older themselves now) and the movie could be set closer to the most popular (in terms of movie revenue) stint in Star Trek history. I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from Trek prequels thanks to First Contact and Enterprise.
"The 20-30 minutes from itunes you cite"
I guess by "you" you don't mean me since I cited 10-20. Even hour long shows like Desperate Housewives tend to complete in about 20 minutes.
"a regular DVD takes too long"
I can torrent a regular DVD image in about two hours or so on my DSL line provided it's relatively popular DVD.
"HD content is out of the question"
Hence the "happy medium" I mentioned. We can probably get something of reasonable quality for an HDTV to fit into a format that can be downloaded overnight at worst on broadband.
"Gold farming anywhere, on the go!"
I just got this image in my head of people all across the country looking like the tech-mining Chinamen in C&C Generals.
"Keyboard for MMOGs is pretty much required"
People said the same thing about keyboard and mouse for FPS games a few years ago. While that may be ideal, there are a large number of FPS games on consoles nowadays and most of them play just fine. Just because nobody has figured out a good way to translate MMOG controls to a console controller yet doesn't mean they won't be able to in the future.
As much as folks might be up in arms over the superiority of one format or another, don't forget that there may be a third player in this race: on-line distribution. You can get TV shows off of iTunes now and download them in about 10-20 minutes. How long until movies see a similar distribution that actually works well. Sure they'll have to be higher quality than what iTunes offers for TV but I imagine that a happy medium between size and quality could be met, even for the HD crowd. When there's a decent on-line distribution method, a decent user interface to go with it, and a relatively inexpensive and easy way to get that video onto a TV, then this Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD war will be largely irrelevant.
I thought the whole Duo Core thing was an Symetric MP system. As such, I was under the impression that it doesn't run one task on one processor and another task on the other processor. I thought it just distributed the workload as evenly as possible across the two processors regardless of how many processes are running. That's wouldn't really lead to a game on one proc and scan on the other proc scenario the article implies, or am I missing something and/or assuming incorrectly?
Linux snobs or not, there's no big barrier to entry on Linux. The installer is a piece of cake for most distros, most Linux distros can get most hardware set up in at least a usuable state, and the window managers installed by default now are almost as easy (if not easier) to use than Windows built-in window manager. My wife can very comfortably use Linux as can my neighbor who used to come over occasionally to use the Internet since she didn't have a computer of her own at the time. There wasn't a massive learning curve to usage and I don't even think she even knew she was using Linux.
Why aren't people coming over? They don't want to. As someone who used to install Linux on all my computers a few years ago, I now use XP almost exclusively at home. XP is almost as stable. I do have to reboot once in a while but who cares on a desktop machine? As long as I'm using Firefox to browse, I don't even have to worry about spyware too much (though I do run it weekly just in case). I keep a Linux box in the basement in case I ever need some sort of server or I'm evaluating some new programming language, but other than that I have no need for Linux on my desktop (which happens to be a laptop in this case). And for those things, I could always use Cygwin.
"If I were to show them real HD content, they might cry."
No, they were crying because they got the bill for their new HD setup.
That's a two-way street though. If you are really interested in getting people to switch then you sure don't want some HDTV owner's neighbor, relative or friend to find out that their DVD collection will look WORSE on a new HDTV than it does on their old big screen. Best to let HDTV stand on its own merits than to cripple the other options.
"I seriously don't understand how people can claim to not be able to tell the difference."
I'm with you there. I really think the difference is noticeable but at the same time I don't think there are a whole lot of people who care about that noticable difference. What they have is good enough right now to not justify spending the extra money on HD. HDTV still isn't quite cheap enough yet, especially considering the sheer number of people who bought a big screen a few years ago during the big screen TV boom.
"Regular DVD's just look like trash on a large HD sceen"
That's usually because any NTSC signal looks like trash on an HDTV screen. Most manufacturers don't take the time to get a non-HD signal looking good on their TVs, which is unfortunate considering low-def video isn't going to just disappear any time soon. Upconverters on DVD players is a decent idea but the TV should be doing a good enough job of conversion that it's not neccessary.
I have two kids but like I said elsewhere in this post, they have a healthy dose of respect and fear for their father.
Healthcare is not socialized for all people but it is socialized to an extent for the poor via Medicaid. Medicaid pays out less per person in proper benefits than it does to hospital emergency rooms who are compelled to treat patients who qualify for Medicaid but aren't registered. Massachusetts is even putting a system in place where hospitals determine whether or not their patients are eligible for Medicaid and then register them if they are. According to their studies, this will lead to a decrease in the amount of money Medicaid pays out yearly, not the increase you seem so sure to believe will happen.
"I assume you've never traveled anywhere where Wal-Mart is a major part of the economy."
You assume incorrectly. I have been to several places where Wal-Mart is a (if not the) major economic force but I've never been anywhere where Wal-Mart is the only place to get a job. Bentonville, Arkansas may be the only exception to this rule but I've never been there so I don't know. Even if such a place did exist, you can always move. You're not a slave if you shackle yourself.
Have you ever worked at a Wal-Mart? I have and while it's no picnic, the pay is decent for the job you do. Funny how I was able to leave that job with no reprecussions from Wal-Mart or worry about future employment. "Slave" indeed. If you want to equate the pay with the actual amount of work they do, Wal-Mart employees are often being paid far more than they deserve.
"It might not suprise you to find out that I've got intelligent, well-educated, think-outside-the-box type kids."
And you're calling me naive? Of course you think you're kids are smarter than most. Nobody thinks their kids a stupid. My kids could probably figure out a way into my office too but they respect and fear their father. I also have full support from my spouse. They know that when I'm working, an interruption of that work is not tolerated unless there is a real emergency. And for what it's worth, I don't lock my door. I don't need to. I do make sure to give them ample attention during lunch and breaks though.
"Novell has filed a motion to stay SCO's claims against Novell until the outcome of this arbitration. So now it looks like Linux users are protected both through the APA between Novell and SCO, but the UnitedLinux agreement as well."
No, it looks like Linux users are protected through both the APA and UnitedLinix depending on the outsome of this motion. You can file motions all you'd like. That doesn't mean they'll be carried out.
Do you bring your kids to the office with you? Then why are you expecting to watch them at home while you are working? Telecommuting is about working from home, not doing a few work-related tasks while you enjoy the rest of your day. It's about saving time and money on the commute and on office space. If you're getting distracted at home, then your home office is not set up properly or you're not working in that home office.
Your suggested pigeonholes do make more sense for games in established genres. What about games not in an established genre? Where do you really put Super Monkey Ball or Saturn Bomberman or even Burning Rangers? I do agree though that "Female", "Minority", or anything of that sort aren't good qualifiers but only because games geared towards those target demographics usually have an extremely low yield.
And here I though Mondas was the Tenth Planet. Those sneaky Cybermen.
You refuse to support a company that helps its employess get the benefits they are entitled to? If more companies helped their employees register for Medicaid, then the number of uninsured people who qualify for Medicaid but aren't registered (20% of total uninsured population) would plummet.
"Slave labor" implies some sort of forced employment. Last I saw, Wal-Mart employees who aren't making enough money are free to leave for another job any time they'd like. The employees may complain about it but they're the ones who took the job at that wage to begin with. There are a lot of jobs that pay more than Wal-Mart, but generally speaking a Wal-Mart position pays as much as a similarly skilled position elsewhere. The only difference is that Wal-Mart employs a lot more unskilled labor than most other stores.
"Is price really the only issue to you as a consumer?"
No. There's also the quality of my shopping experience. That's why I usually spend a little more to shop at Target when I'm in the area of a Target. Their customer service is above and beyond Wal-Mart's. I also look at return policy on some items. Wal-Mart is the bomb when it comes to return policy. There's no such thing as adead pixel policy there and I haven't bought an automotive battery in years because I can just take mine back once a year before the warranty runs out.
I really don't care what Bob and Joe do with their spare time. I might not join Bob in a puppy-kicking contest but as long as he's selling cheap and he doesn't feel the need to interject his hobby into my shopping experience, I'll buy from Bob. I'll be sure to vote for Joe over Bob when selecting a citizen of the year though.
What you say would be true if there were some clear definition of "good game." It doesn't work that way though. Is Madden 06 a good game? I think it is but I'll wager there are plenty of people here who think it's not. Likewise, is Call of Duty 2 a good game? I don't think so but sales numbers disagree with me. The problem game developers face and the reason there is a qualifier in the first place for "gamer" is that different people find differrent things fun and enjoyable. Using a pigeon hole to try to corral as many gamers as they can into one definition of enjoyable goes a long way towards increasing game sales.
"getting paid the slave wages that mean he can only afford to buy at Wal-Mart"
Have you comparison shopped lately? Wal-Mart isn't even particularly cheap anymore. Most goods Wal-Mart sells can be had cheaper on-line. If not, then you can ususally at least get the same price for better quality on-line.
Wal-Mart's generic food label is horrible so if you buy generic items that are good and buy name brand for everything else, you'll wind up spending a lot more on groceries as compared to somewhere with a good generic label like Kroger. Wal-Mart's meat department is also hideously overpriced in our area. I can get most meats for at least $1/lb cheaper at Quality Foods.
My father-in-law used to run a Coleman Camper dealership. The camper supplies he sold were always cheaper than they were at Wal-Mart but he always had customers thinking they'd get a better price if they just waited until they went to wal-mart to get that kind of thing. More often than not, they'd sheepishly return to buy from him after seeing Wal-Mart's prices.
People get this idea in their heads that Wal-Mart is the cheapest place to get something. In this day and age with those massive Wal-Mart Supercenters they have to pay for, that's not always the case.
"Unfortunately, companies don't make the rules here. Consumers do."
You mispelled "fortunately" by putting an "un" in front of it. I sure don't want anyone else telling me where to shop or what to buy. If Wal-Mart has what I want at a good price, then I'll buy it there. If not, I'll get it somewhere else. Wal-Mart is on top of this game for a reason. The only thing they are dictating is what their customers will buy.
My work experience started in late 2001. The dot-com bubble had already burst and my professors spent a good chunk of my senior year warning us that the good times were over and it would be very hard to find a job right after graduation. I did find a job though. It paid a lot less (~= $7K per year less) than the only other offer I could find but the job I took was a jack of all trades position with the government that would at least get more experience under my belt than the other offer (UNIX support desk for a call center) which was much more of a "dead end." I stayed at the government job until the economy got better (even survived a round of layoffs with the government of all places) and then took another jack of all trades position that focused more on my preference: software development. I stayed there until I got the aforementioned job offer as a software developer (without all the other stuff like DB maintenance, tech support, and server maintenance to worry about).
In short, I had to do a lot of other stuff I wasn't interested in before I garnered enough experience to be a full-fledged software developer. If you want to be a DBA but don't have the experience, then you need to find a job where you can do what you do have experience for that has some DBA work to do on the side, even if you're only a backup to the regular DBA. You're right that you're not going to up and decide to be a DBA one day and find a company willing to pay to train on the job. Those days still haven't come back and probably never will again.