1) No, on a purely financial basis, it probably isn't worth it. (Saves the posts of people doing a detailed analysis.)
Actually if the Government would subsidise renewable energy at the same rate as they do with conventional (coal, gas, oil and nuclear) Wind Energy (or pretty much any renewable energy source) would be very competitive.
But reality is that these new energy generation methods simply don't have the cloud in $capital_of_country that the "traditional" energy forms have.
but one thing is overlooked: Apple hasn't really updated the iPod since back before Christmas, meaning that there was no reason for people to go out and buy a new one.
If Apple does manage to release a "real" iPod Video things may pick up once again.
Harry Dresden goes TV? When did that happen? I wasn't even aware they had showed the TV movie yet. I love the books and would probably look forward to it (depending on how the movie is).
Sorry I was laughing very very hard during that episode. They were truly doing this tongue in cheek and you could tell that all of the actors had a blast doing it (and I assume the writers did too).
McKay is funny, but Weir is weak. What happened to Ford? And Talia (or however you spell it) is annoying. Sheppard and McKay make that show.
McKay is funny, and even better, the character got to grow, too bad that in one of the last episodes he reverted back to the old McKay (I think that one was written by the SG-1 writers, and McKay was whiny and bitchy again, though the joke with the lemon was good).
As for Ford, yeah, what happened? Personally the Atlantis team is pretty much a copy cat of SG-1 now, Ford was clearly an interesting (albeit "weak") character. Weir is at times a bit bitchy I'd say.
Still, I find them enjoyable and at least SG-1 doesn't take itself too seriously unlike TNG and Voyager did.
BSG and Atlantis for sure, then there is EUReKA which I think has it's charme, but I am not sure it'll survive the first year.
It's sad actually I really think the Series has picked up again, the new enemies are clearly badder than the original ones and it is actually FUN to watch.
In contrast it seems Atlantis at times is taking itself too seriously. I really hope they reconsider.
Yeah, no kidding. Doctorow thinks the world owes him a lifetime of free entertainment, yet he's a slavish fanboy who goes nuts over every piece of tacky Disney merchandise he finds.
It's very odd.
Actually if you look at his "profile" on Wikipedia you realize that his parents probably never let him go to Disneyland when he was a kid, so he's overcompensating.
That would be all fine and well with me, but what makes this really bad is:
- Unlike Apple, Disney has activly changed the law to allow them to profit longer from their work. - Has been instrumental in lobbying the DMCA.
All Apple did was follow the law and get a system in place that adheres to it, but is as lose as possible.
Not only this, but he is not only giving Disney his money, but regularly free publicity in form of BoingBoing posts and by making it part of his Novels.
Looking at this I can't take anything he says against Apple seriously. The man lost his way.
Because the "cool kids" aren't cool anymore and they want to be "better" again? So they move on and bash Apple now which they praised in high terms not a year ago?
Blind worship is bad, blind defiance "just because" isn't any better really.
I think he lost a bit perspective over the last few years. My favourite beef right now is that he is blabbering on that he is abandoning OS X because of the "proprietary file formats" that Apple is using. I am not quite sure which formats he means.
I am starting to get the feeling he just needs to be "special" and "differnt", Apple now has become "too mainstream" for him and he is "moving on".
As for his Novels.... Some funky ideas, I just wish he would stop being so utterly in love with everything Disney does, or at least let's it colour his view of the world.
she was flabbergasted that she had been locked into iTunes and how her rights and freedoms were restricted by its DRM.
How exactly does iTunes use DRM? iTunes itself does not create DRM encrypted files, the ones you download from the iTMS ARE of course DRM "protected" but iTunes doesn't lock anybody in. All the files I have in my iTunes (over 30K) are DRM free and can be copied anywhere I like to copy them.
I do think the audience cares, but a good story needs time to develop and most TV Execs aren't willing to do this anymore.
Take Firefly for example, when it first came out I shunned it because I am not a fan of Western, but that was what it was marketed as: "Western" and I said: "No thanks", it didn't help that the one or two episodes I catched didn't really catch my imagination either.
Deadwood: Same thing for me, I dissed it because I wasn't into Western until someone "forced" me to watch an episode and I found myself intrigued.
Reality is that most studios try to find an "angle" to hang a show on and if that is a bad one the show tanks.
Just from last year:
Invasion: I think it had promise, but the term "snail pace" doesn't even begin to describe it. I watched the first ten episodes and I got to the point where I just wanted to take the actors and made sure they never ever get out of the water again. It was just that bad. The sense that something was there but nothing ever happened. I guess if you had a water fetish that show would have worked for you.
Surface: Popcorn TV, it was fun, it showed you the monster and it moved on. It was entertaining and had a lot of potential, too bad it got canned too.
Threshold: Undecided on that one, the problem with it was that the premise was intersting, but the real threat never really was made clear (besides the smaller threat of people being killed, but that alone doesn't carry the show, now does it?).
I am reminded of JMS's remark about the end of "Jeremiah" (IMO an underrated show as well), where he said he will never ever work with MGM again while the current management is in place, it seems they tried to tell him what to do and how to do it. If they (suits) really want good shows they should let the creator give as much freedom as possible (meaning: Give him / her a budget and then let them do as they see fit. Maybe then there will be more risky (as in ideas) movies and TV Shows instead of the cookie cutter entertainment we have today.
Go see "A Scanner Darkly". Catch Aronofsky's "The Fountain" when it hits theaters. See Ed Norton in "The Illusionist". Keep an eye out for Lynch's "Inland Empire". There have always been crap films coming out, but if you know what to look for, there's some really exciting things coming out right now. Ignore the remakes-of-remakes, and look around a bit. You'll find plenty of new ideas out there.
Notice something on those movies? They mostly won't be playing in the large theaters.
I am in Vancouver and I know of two smaller theaters that do show movies like "A Scanner Darkly", but the big ones, the ones where most people go does not carry it (but they do have 3 copies of Pirates running).
Reality is, although those films exist, the audience that is truly interested in the "brain buster" is vastly smaller and more distributed than one might think.
A friend moved from downtown Vancouver to the 'burbs, when I visited him he showed me a small strip mall near his place and he pointed out a three screen movie theater that closed down when the big multiplex opened around the corner. When I said it would have been the perfect place for an art house theater where some of the more unusual movies could have been played he laughed and said: "Look around you, this is Southpark, nobody would go and watch those movies."
Movies have gotten really expensive, they need to make that money back, so they want to appeal to the biggest market possible, and that means to play it safe.
Pirates of the Carribean is a pretty good example, the movie was just plain boring and bad, but still it reigns the box office because all is badness, there are enough people who find SOMETHING in it and moreso it doesn't offend anyone.
Stargate Atlantis (or Deadwood, Rome etc.) are niche shows that have a well defined audience who the writers can aim too (that, and Stargate as well as BSG may benefit from being a Canadian production).
In essence what it comes down to is: Good writing vs. Mass compatibility, it does not necessarily exclude each other, but a lot of times that is what happens.
I agree, there really aren't many movies out there that I want to see, I was considering watching Clerks II, but I wonder if I really want to plop the money down for it as I somehow feel it is Kevin Smith's attempt to go back to something he knows, and I don't think he'll really progressed anywhere with it (if you've seen it, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong with my assessment).
If Digital Distribution really takes off, things may change, because then smaller movies, that aren't that expensive and are carried by a story can be easier made available, but for the time being you have to deal with large productions that are heavily influenced by (conflicting) market research.
Here's the difference. In 1984, Ingsoc had the resources and the devotees to go after every single Winston Smith. In real life, if your girlfriend buys 4 peaches and they take down her social security and mother's maiden name, what can the government do with that?
They don't have to do anything with it (yet). They just need to collect this information for now.
Right now the problem is that they have to operate within the constrains of the law, but they can change the law over time. Once they get it to a point where they have free reign in dealing with "terrorists" any way they see fit they don't need any due process, they print out a list and the man in black come by and that's the last time you've been seen.
Can't happen in the US? How did the US get into the current Iraq War? Ah yes, Congress gave Bush Carte Blanche he could do anything he wanted with Iraq, even nuke it if he felt that this would have been the right thing even though the law does actually NOT allow for this (he has to put a vote up before congress before he can go to war, at least that's how it was in the past).
The process is rather simple then:
1. Collect Data on "trouble makers". 2. Change law to permit you to deal with terrorists any way you see fit. 3. Declare above mentioned trouble makers to terrorists. 4. Profit.
The end result between Orwell and today's world isn't different. In 1984 the news were just as much controlled as they are today, the difference is in Orwell it was the Government outright, here it is done by Proxy. People get the news they are supposed to get, as determined by the Government or Government friendly conglomerates.
Obviously this is a symbiotic relationships, the Business Man who owns the news does what helps HIS politician and in return he gets what he wants.
This isn't really all that new either, but in the past there were so many different news outlets that it was hard to have them all agree with each other. Competition was good, because if you had two competing newspapers chances were good that the same person in power was owned / owed favours to both of them.
These days news is utterly concentrated by a few large conglomerates who control not only newspapers, but Radio, TV, Internet etc.
The Internet right now has the ability to bypass some of this for those who want, but things like the net neutrality already shows there are attempts to get control over this, or what do you think will happen if your ISP that belongs to a conglomerate that has a lot of news feeds can start controlling what comes through your pipe? I bet you won't get to Indymedia that easily anymore.
There's an SF novel - I think it's David Brin's Earth - which has an interesting take on privacy. It's set in a near future where people have given up on ever having any sort of privacy and have gone to the opposite extreme - that of demaning that all information be open to everyone, without restriction
Although I think personal privacy is a good thing, I'd rather have that scenario than the one we're going to have. It is not that everybody will know everything about everybody (that would give an even playing field) but rather that a selected few will know everything about the rest.
Knowledge isn't the problem, the problem is who has the knowledge (and what they can do with it).
No, becuase CEO's and oil companies are not forcing their rules upon us with the power of police and prisons and the military. If I choose to work for a company I follow their rules. I can choose to work somewhere else.
Sure sure, they just have their bought politicians change the rules in their favour.... I think this could be called "governing by proxy".
This is what people mean when they call your idea communism. You want the govornment to make these decisions for everyone.
While in the "free" market we currently have the businesses buy the laws and rules they like and we have to live by it. That is obviously better because it is not the evil Government, just good corporations (note sarcasm)
If you'd check your history you would see that communism does not work. Why do you think it would work in the U.S.? Do you think a govornment that coddles corporations and does not care about the little guy would all of the sudden completely turn around? Do you think an apathetic populas will all of the sudden forge a utopia?
Capitalism doesn't really work either. Not that we have tried that (or communism), but the current "capitalist" society we're living in is only working for (at best) 1/6th of the worlds population, the other 5/6th are feeding this. How long do you think this can work?
What is needed is a middle ground, but because the 1/6th that reap all the benefits doesn't want things to change (hey, it's great, so why change) things won't change until it literally implodes.
The US system is as broken as Soviet Russia was, it will just break in a different way, and to proclaim "victory" over the Stalinst system after 16 years may be in the interest of the people currently in power, but in historic terms the vote is still out, and in fact looking AT the world right now I think we can conclude that "our reign" will come to an end sooner rather than later, the signs are already there.
That reminds me of a comment made in "Who killed the Electric Car?" when a commentator was saying it failed because American consumers think when it comes to "conserve" that: "Oh you want us to live in a cold house and drive little cars, you know, live like Europeans."
That caused an outburst of laughter in the cinema (Vancouver, BC, Canada, you know, the place further north with cold winters and lots of Europeans).
This also means that we go to the supermarket once every two weeks, because we have better ways to spend our time (that's particularly important in more rural parts of America, where the nearest supermarket with a nice selection may be a long drive from home; Europeans sometimes don't intuitively grasp how much larger and less densely populated the US is, compared to their own countries.)
Canada is even less densly populated, but in both countries a lot of this is also "self inflicted" with suburban sprawl. Reality is that the only way you can keep food around for that long is by basically have everything frozen or conserved in one way or the other. The European "Model" (in fact, the model in most of the world) is that people buy fresh ingridients and they just don't last that long.
I personally get suspicious when a tomatoe I bought and let sit on the counter was still nice 2 weeks later..... Wonder what they did to the poor tomatoe.
I have worked for major corporations since 1990 and I see the gulf between management and software professionals growing widerthan ever with the increasing sophistication of tools and the increasing complexity of projects. Engineering culture has all but disappeared.
This is where a good Architect (if you like or hate that designation) comes into play. S/He would be the person who bridges that divide. A "jack of all trades". In essence you have to know the bullshit from the real stuff and understand what is required to make business work without necessarily know all the details.
What will happen is that jobs will splitter even more, with people getting more specialized in specific areas, which will in part take creativity out of the jobs.
I always get the idea that the "authorities" who right these articles don't have a clue about the real world.
And I have the feeling that you don't know how most businesses work: They tend to use more than one technology and of course their IDEAL candidate possess all the technology knowledge, heck, that's whey they want to hire you.
It doesn't matter at the end of the day that you don't, because the guy who is interviewing you hopefully realizes that very few people have ALL the skills.
As a crass example, if I'm running a call-center for the republican party, it wouldn't be such a good idea to hire people who profess on myspace a strong involvement with the communist party and the first church of Satan. I'd be better served by hiring people with details on myspace about their sunday school and latest abortion clinic bombings.
Oh come on now, this could actually be fun to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually if the Government would subsidise renewable energy at the same rate as they do with conventional (coal, gas, oil and nuclear) Wind Energy (or pretty much any renewable energy source) would be very competitive.
But reality is that these new energy generation methods simply don't have the cloud in $capital_of_country that the "traditional" energy forms have.
Leider hat mein Englisches Keyboard keine Umlaute und ich hab die Codes mittlerweile vergessen.
Naja, man versteht sich ja auch so.
Yeah,
but one thing is overlooked: Apple hasn't really updated the iPod since back before Christmas, meaning that there was no reason for people to go out and buy a new one.
If Apple does manage to release a "real" iPod Video things may pick up once again.
Harry Dresden goes TV? When did that happen? I wasn't even aware they had showed the TV movie yet. I love the books and would probably look forward to it (depending on how the movie is).
Sorry I was laughing very very hard during that episode. They were truly doing this tongue in cheek and you could tell that all of the actors had a blast doing it (and I assume the writers did too).
McKay is funny, and even better, the character got to grow, too bad that in one of the last episodes he reverted back to the old McKay (I think that one was written by the SG-1 writers, and McKay was whiny and bitchy again, though the joke with the lemon was good).
As for Ford, yeah, what happened? Personally the Atlantis team is pretty much a copy cat of SG-1 now, Ford was clearly an interesting (albeit "weak") character. Weir is at times a bit bitchy I'd say.
Still, I find them enjoyable and at least SG-1 doesn't take itself too seriously unlike TNG and Voyager did.
BSG and Atlantis for sure, then there is EUReKA which I think has it's charme, but I am not sure it'll survive the first year.
It's sad actually I really think the Series has picked up again, the new enemies are clearly badder than the original ones and it is actually FUN to watch.
In contrast it seems Atlantis at times is taking itself too seriously. I really hope they reconsider.
Look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH2_g2qCc1I
Actually if you look at his "profile" on Wikipedia you realize that his parents probably never let him go to Disneyland when he was a kid, so he's overcompensating.
That would be all fine and well with me, but what makes this really bad is:
- Unlike Apple, Disney has activly changed the law to allow them to profit longer from their work.
- Has been instrumental in lobbying the DMCA.
All Apple did was follow the law and get a system in place that adheres to it, but is as lose as possible.
Not only this, but he is not only giving Disney his money, but regularly free publicity in form of BoingBoing posts and by making it part of his Novels.
Looking at this I can't take anything he says against Apple seriously. The man lost his way.
Not to forget that AAC is not an Apple format but as "free" as MP3. So nobody is prevented from giving their players AAC capabilities.
Now the FairPlay DRM is a different story, but that has nothing to do with AAC and that you can get around it was shown by RealNetworks.
Because the "cool kids" aren't cool anymore and they want to be "better" again? So they move on and bash Apple now which they praised in high terms not a year ago?
Blind worship is bad, blind defiance "just because" isn't any better really.
I think he lost a bit perspective over the last few years. My favourite beef right now is that he is blabbering on that he is abandoning OS X because of the "proprietary file formats" that Apple is using. I am not quite sure which formats he means.
I am starting to get the feeling he just needs to be "special" and "differnt", Apple now has become "too mainstream" for him and he is "moving on".
As for his Novels.... Some funky ideas, I just wish he would stop being so utterly in love with everything Disney does, or at least let's it colour his view of the world.
How exactly does iTunes use DRM? iTunes itself does not create DRM encrypted files, the ones you download from the iTMS ARE of course DRM "protected" but iTunes doesn't lock anybody in. All the files I have in my iTunes (over 30K) are DRM free and can be copied anywhere I like to copy them.
I do think the audience cares, but a good story needs time to develop and most TV Execs aren't willing to do this anymore.
Take Firefly for example, when it first came out I shunned it because I am not a fan of Western, but that was what it was marketed as: "Western" and I said: "No thanks", it didn't help that the one or two episodes I catched didn't really catch my imagination either.
Deadwood: Same thing for me, I dissed it because I wasn't into Western until someone "forced" me to watch an episode and I found myself intrigued.
Reality is that most studios try to find an "angle" to hang a show on and if that is a bad one the show tanks.
Just from last year:
Invasion: I think it had promise, but the term "snail pace" doesn't even begin to describe it. I watched the first ten episodes and I got to the point where I just wanted to take the actors and made sure they never ever get out of the water again. It was just that bad. The sense that something was there but nothing ever happened. I guess if you had a water fetish that show would have worked for you.
Surface: Popcorn TV, it was fun, it showed you the monster and it moved on. It was entertaining and had a lot of potential, too bad it got canned too.
Threshold: Undecided on that one, the problem with it was that the premise was intersting, but the real threat never really was made clear (besides the smaller threat of people being killed, but that alone doesn't carry the show, now does it?).
I am reminded of JMS's remark about the end of "Jeremiah" (IMO an underrated show as well), where he said he will never ever work with MGM again while the current management is in place, it seems they tried to tell him what to do and how to do it. If they (suits) really want good shows they should let the creator give as much freedom as possible (meaning: Give him / her a budget and then let them do as they see fit. Maybe then there will be more risky (as in ideas) movies and TV Shows instead of the cookie cutter entertainment we have today.
Notice something on those movies? They mostly won't be playing in the large theaters.
I am in Vancouver and I know of two smaller theaters that do show movies like "A Scanner Darkly", but the big ones, the ones where most people go does not carry it (but they do have 3 copies of Pirates running).
Reality is, although those films exist, the audience that is truly interested in the "brain buster" is vastly smaller and more distributed than one might think.
A friend moved from downtown Vancouver to the 'burbs, when I visited him he showed me a small strip mall near his place and he pointed out a three screen movie theater that closed down when the big multiplex opened around the corner. When I said it would have been the perfect place for an art house theater where some of the more unusual movies could have been played he laughed and said: "Look around you, this is Southpark, nobody would go and watch those movies."
Movies have gotten really expensive, they need to make that money back, so they want to appeal to the biggest market possible, and that means to play it safe.
Pirates of the Carribean is a pretty good example, the movie was just plain boring and bad, but still it reigns the box office because all is badness, there are enough people who find SOMETHING in it and moreso it doesn't offend anyone.
Stargate Atlantis (or Deadwood, Rome etc.) are niche shows that have a well defined audience who the writers can aim too (that, and Stargate as well as BSG may benefit from being a Canadian production).
In essence what it comes down to is: Good writing vs. Mass compatibility, it does not necessarily exclude each other, but a lot of times that is what happens.
I agree, there really aren't many movies out there that I want to see, I was considering watching Clerks II, but I wonder if I really want to plop the money down for it as I somehow feel it is Kevin Smith's attempt to go back to something he knows, and I don't think he'll really progressed anywhere with it (if you've seen it, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong with my assessment).
If Digital Distribution really takes off, things may change, because then smaller movies, that aren't that expensive and are carried by a story can be easier made available, but for the time being you have to deal with large productions that are heavily influenced by (conflicting) market research.
They don't have to do anything with it (yet). They just need to collect this information for now.
Right now the problem is that they have to operate within the constrains of the law, but they can change the law over time. Once they get it to a point where they have free reign in dealing with "terrorists" any way they see fit they don't need any due process, they print out a list and the man in black come by and that's the last time you've been seen.
Can't happen in the US? How did the US get into the current Iraq War? Ah yes, Congress gave Bush Carte Blanche he could do anything he wanted with Iraq, even nuke it if he felt that this would have been the right thing even though the law does actually NOT allow for this (he has to put a vote up before congress before he can go to war, at least that's how it was in the past).
The process is rather simple then:
1. Collect Data on "trouble makers".
2. Change law to permit you to deal with terrorists any way you see fit.
3. Declare above mentioned trouble makers to terrorists.
4. Profit.
The end result between Orwell and today's world isn't different. In 1984 the news were just as much controlled as they are today, the difference is in Orwell it was the Government outright, here it is done by Proxy. People get the news they are supposed to get, as determined by the Government or Government friendly conglomerates.
Obviously this is a symbiotic relationships, the Business Man who owns the news does what helps HIS politician and in return he gets what he wants.
This isn't really all that new either, but in the past there were so many different news outlets that it was hard to have them all agree with each other. Competition was good, because if you had two competing newspapers chances were good that the same person in power was owned / owed favours to both of them.
These days news is utterly concentrated by a few large conglomerates who control not only newspapers, but Radio, TV, Internet etc.
The Internet right now has the ability to bypass some of this for those who want, but things like the net neutrality already shows there are attempts to get control over this, or what do you think will happen if your ISP that belongs to a conglomerate that has a lot of news feeds can start controlling what comes through your pipe? I bet you won't get to Indymedia that easily anymore.
Although I think personal privacy is a good thing, I'd rather have that scenario than the one we're going to have. It is not that everybody will know everything about everybody (that would give an even playing field) but rather that a selected few will know everything about the rest.
Knowledge isn't the problem, the problem is who has the knowledge (and what they can do with it).
Sure sure, they just have their bought politicians change the rules in their favour.... I think this could be called "governing by proxy".
While in the "free" market we currently have the businesses buy the laws and rules they like and we have to live by it. That is obviously better because it is not the evil Government, just good corporations (note sarcasm)
Capitalism doesn't really work either. Not that we have tried that (or communism), but the current "capitalist" society we're living in is only working for (at best) 1/6th of the worlds population, the other 5/6th are feeding this. How long do you think this can work?
What is needed is a middle ground, but because the 1/6th that reap all the benefits doesn't want things to change (hey, it's great, so why change) things won't change until it literally implodes.
The US system is as broken as Soviet Russia was, it will just break in a different way, and to proclaim "victory" over the Stalinst system after 16 years may be in the interest of the people currently in power, but in historic terms the vote is still out, and in fact looking AT the world right now I think we can conclude that "our reign" will come to an end sooner rather than later, the signs are already there.
The good news: With so many preservatives in you, you will probably continue to live after you've expired and nobody will know any better.
That caused an outburst of laughter in the cinema (Vancouver, BC, Canada, you know, the place further north with cold winters and lots of Europeans).
Canada is even less densly populated, but in both countries a lot of this is also "self inflicted" with suburban sprawl. Reality is that the only way you can keep food around for that long is by basically have everything frozen or conserved in one way or the other. The European "Model" (in fact, the model in most of the world) is that people buy fresh ingridients and they just don't last that long.
I personally get suspicious when a tomatoe I bought and let sit on the counter was still nice 2 weeks later..... Wonder what they did to the poor tomatoe.
This is where a good Architect (if you like or hate that designation) comes into play. S/He would be the person who bridges that divide. A "jack of all trades". In essence you have to know the bullshit from the real stuff and understand what is required to make business work without necessarily know all the details.
What will happen is that jobs will splitter even more, with people getting more specialized in specific areas, which will in part take creativity out of the jobs.
And I have the feeling that you don't know how most businesses work: They tend to use more than one technology and of course their IDEAL candidate possess all the technology knowledge, heck, that's whey they want to hire you.
It doesn't matter at the end of the day that you don't, because the guy who is interviewing you hopefully realizes that very few people have ALL the skills.
Oh come on now, this could actually be fun to watch.