Point is it's not a big deal. It's the same best-selling iPod, only now better in basically every way. And yes, it plays videos.
The only real "big deal" of it is in regards to how it will affect the media distribution model. iTunes single-handed forced legal music into wide acceptance, so what might the industry reaction be in regards to TV/movies/etc?
Of course it also means the video podcasting will be pushed forward en masse.
I don't believe he's talking about video playing on a portable device, but rather the digital distributorship that the end bitching is about: But then who would pay $1.99 to download...?
Who in heck CARES if PVR functionality will come along? (And personally I think it will, and with Apple... The Mac mini is likely to be wedged into a role in the entertainment center anyway, and the iPod in conjunction with it.) What "can be done" or "will be done" isn't the point--it will come in due time (where it isn't already... just little known or able to be noticed); what is important is breaking down the first barriers to electronic distribution so that more barriers will follow. What Apple did with music they may be able to do to video as well, and where THAT will lead is only encouraging.
Does it have optimal visual quality, the best distribution format, an open rights management policy, or any of the other issues we can and do think of surrounding this...? Of course not. But getting a top-tier publishing company on board the most popular online music distributor (legal downloads that is... you know what I mean:P ) and channelled through the undisputed heavyweight champion of the portable music/media devices is the best way to jumpstart what we've ALL been hoping for and bitching about for years.
...not to mention that getting things out faster and more furiously (yeah, yeah... shut it) works well to consumer advantage, as both the content providers and the competitors to Apple in this will jump into it all more blindly than they would have otherwise to try to stay at the head of the game. Which means it's far LESS likely that they'll have thought out how to force all their rights into the distribution channel, or conspire with the media companies to drain us for whatever they can get. Competition in this case will be much more frentic and misdirected... in the way that WE can take advantage of.;-)
You should know that iPod's market share in Korea is completely disappointing, and companies like iRiver still sells millions of players every year.
While the iPod has yet to make a dent, you're still overestimating Korea's MP3 market. In 2002, 400k players sold (14% of worldwide sales), 1.1 million in 2003 (15%), 1.8 million in 2004 (7.5%). A good boost is estimated for 2005 - 3.5 million - but that's still only 7% of the estimated 50 million worldwide sales. The iRiver accounted for 1.1m of those Korean sales in 2004 (61%), but that's a far cry from "millions," and it shows that the Korean MP3 market is still in formative states. If indeed iRiver's market share has dropped to 35% according to your article (which shows that the top three sellers barely breach the market position iRiver alone had in 2004) it shows just how much of a flux the NK market is in. Anyone with a good enough product and solid support could make a good showing.
More competition? Fickle consumers? Passing fads?...who knows? There are any number of factors coming into play, I'm sure. But it also shows that if Samsung is really attempting a squeeze play, they're playing a dangerous game. They're not being solidly drubbed themselves, and they're opening the door to a dangerous competitor.
Personally, I don't think Samsung cares all that much about the korean market. (A desire to pressure Toshiba and Hitachi on the global front is more plausable, however.) It's a nice niche for them, but they're a huge producer of flash memory, and they want in with the biggest player who's going to sell the biggest slice of those ~50m sales this year. Can they get in the nano AND the shuffle AND continue to claim guaranteed sales for every new chip they whip up for as long as the iPod is in the lead? Perhaps they can. That'd certainly be what they want.
On the initial article's comments, though, I don't really know what they mean by "below market costs." Does the government regulate it THAT strictly? Dumping is one thing, but does anyone imagine for a second that Samsung wants to lose money on tens of millions of chips? Competitive pricing just makes sense, but unless discounts are specifically against korean trade laws... Just who is bringing up what, and why?
As for your last paragraph, Microsoft's "superior engineering"?
I do believe he's just making wry commentary on the likelihood of their positions swapping in ALL cases. And there's certainly something to be said for that, as an unchallengable market leader tends to stagnate while the up-and-coming try to compete on whatever grounds they can.
If Mac OS had become the dominant platform back in the day instead of Windows, you'd all be talking about Microsoft's superior engineering and decrying Apples anti-competetive tactics.
You got that right.;-) But I wouldn't put too much behind a statement like "There's a reason Apple was the only one to put out a small/sleek player when everyone else was still putting out clunky nightmares"... The original iPods still looked, felt, and functioned much better than the competition, and after those 1.8" drives hit wider availability said competition STILL hadn't whipped up anything much that's par, let alone a few swings under.
Those talking about Apple's superior engineering and aesthetics still have quite the point.;-)
...why do so many people point to line transition costs as a hugely important factor? Are publishers going to be DUMPING DVD lines right now to pick up HD lines? It seems rather foolish that they would toss their breadwinner away to move to any of the undecided formats, so it seems more likely that they'd want to pick up whatever ones would be more easily added to their existing facilities (i.e. "take up less space"), what ones would start off having higher capacities so they can kick next-gen support out the door well, and what ones seem to show more promise 5-10 years from now when they actually WILL be cutting back on some DVD support.
Hopefully it takes a normal 3.5" IDE drive just like the PS2 does.
It does not. 2.5" internal, and easily-swappable like the 360's. (I do believe it's aimed at an internal bay and not attached to the outside, though.)
It is, however, supposedly going to be a much larger drive (rumored 80GB, but who knows?) and come with Linux pre-installed (and hopefully a useful suite of apps and PVR-type software) to be a more interesting optional add-on, though. Hopefully they won't fart around with it like the PS2's drive so that it'll be actively pursued by developers and made useful for we consumers.
Family Guy broke form, so let's all hope and pray that Serenity succeeds past expectations, and Firefly drums up enough viewers with a proper treatment to return to television anew!
If Firefly AND Battlestar Galactica were to continue on for years to come, I just might be happy about sci-fi again!
Disney is simply delivering what American parents want.
...and yet parents are simply not bringing their kids to Disney films anymore, so this comment certainly isn't the case. They might still be conforming to "the idea," but theyre not delivering anything in reality, so they certainly DO have to figure out what to change.
What difference does it make wether I say "I invented the phonograph", or "I created the phonograph"?
Because he said neither. He said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Which, while unwieldy and potentially confusing, is certainly not the same thing. The fact that his quote was continually stripped of context AND changed to "invented" (most articles simply offered that one word in quotes when referring to his whole commentary) was simply to leave no doubt in people's minds the impression they were TRYING to give. Certainly if all he said was "I created the Internet" that could be as confusing... but of course he didn't.
The fact that the press shortened his whole quote to only what they liked is telling--and they do it way too often for way too many people. The fact that you continue to use it as well is also telling.
Is there such a thing as downtime for an important public servant?
Count the number of Congressmen who developed technology while they served in Congress and were publicly-recognized for it? Who just have their name in a patent or trademark? Heck, if you extend it through their whole lifespans and not just their stint in Congress, does it look much better?
Now, after you've scoured Google for an hour or so trying to find SOMEthing useful, just what do you think the public at large knows without ANY of that? (Oh yes, and do try to leave the 18th century. They could indeed pick out people like Franklin and Jefferson, but I do believe some modern relevance is in order.)
People DO, however, know that what politicians do is create policy--that being built into their name and all. (Though frankly I think more people think politicians "create messes" and "spend their money stupidly" at this point.;-) ) Ah, that word "create"... Perhaps in the full context of his statements that's what they would have come up with? I think that rather likely. The word "invent," however...? It really only conjurs up one image. And for that knowingly incorrect image to be used, that's the word of choice.
Your mention of the New Deal is also interesting here, since it much more supports my posit than yours. The New Deal was a high-minded, broad-reaching set of policies and expenditures of public capital to promote growth in the certain areas, provide jobs, provide security... It was a governmental plan, and though FDR gets the credit of driving it through, do you think anyone really believe he sat at a typewriter and typed the whole gameplan up himself, soup to nuts, without consulting any advisors, working with political allies and enemies to see what was feasable and acceptable, and without wanting any other feedback? Because that's STILL what you're claiming when you say Gore's (still creatively edited) quote only had one real interpretation by the public at large.
The public, however, is entirely used to presidents--for instance--taking credit for anything that happens under their watch, whether they know any of the history of how it came to pass, and said presidents will certainly use it in their campaign stomping... and you know what? Huge sections of the press aren't of the habit of hopping up and down on their comments personally and declaring it a mental or personality defect.
When Bush would claim victory for certain outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan, did people believe he wrote up the battle plans, trained the troops, and handled the logistics himself? Or perhaps do they recognize that he was the forefront personality to drive the war effort forward, so lay the praise or blame at his desk? Similarly, then, if Gore claims that within the Congress he "took the initiative in creating the Internet"--something which is more recognized as a broad concept and public service and not simply a collection of wires and data packets--why would they instantly think he was talking about ONLY the creation of the technolog
Um... Just how long did it take you to work up that werid-ass application of logic and seriously... are you joking? They press did him a favor by changing it to "invented" (which calls to mind people like Franklin and Edison) instead of using his whole quote? And yes, I DO mean his whole quote, not just the part you wanted to highlight. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Tell me, just how many people believe that Congress has a technology research lab downstairs for their members to use on their downtime to invent important new things for the public's interest? How many members of congress came from engineering backgrounds because they wanted to put their technical prowess to good use?
People policy, it can advance certain technologies by granting it more federal funding, and--yes--politicians who were heavily involved in (or hell, even scantly involved so long as their names are attached to a few bills) like to take credit for those things that pan out. (And make sure not to mention those things that were a bad idea for them to support.;-) ) This is pretty much what you're pointing at when you say "within the United States Congress" or immediately start talking about "moving forward a while range of initiatives." Doing what Congress does. Or did Gore also think he created the concepts of economic growth and environmental protection?
Do you honestly think that Gore was trying to set forth that he created the underlying technological backbone that was the Internet, ARPANet, et al? Considering that the concept is ludicrous, just possibly might he have been talking about it differently? It's not like the "Internet" means one thing specifically. It is not the same thing as ARPANet, it is not simply TCP/IP packets and ethernet cable... The general public (to whom he was addressing his comments) recognizes it pretty much as "the way we send email to gramma (and get porn), buy stuff from Amazon (in-between getting porn), and auction stuff on eBay (after which... porn!)." We did not get there because because a bunch of scientists who were sharing research data with each other thought it would be a kickin' idea to open it up to everyone on earth, and their companies decided to shoulder the expense of bringing it to the people themselves.
So was Gore out of line in saying it was through his effort that Congress pushed forth policies to bring "what we now know as the Internet" to us? Creating the broad landscape we were using every day from the private scientific/educational underpinnings? Offhand I'm not sure, but that it what was worthy of discussion by the press, instead of the ridicule-storm that erupted. Certainly politicians, press, and inventors OF actual internet technologies recognize the efforts he set forth, and think things would have been different if he hadn't been.
However, the press morphed it almost instantly into a character flaw attack, misquoted him in a what that specifically calls to EVERYONE'S attention that he must have been talking about the technology itself since they used "invent" and stripped out all othe context (After all, Bush has taken credit for "creating" the Department of Homeland Security and other departments, fiscal policies and matters of public interest... Do people actually think he was somehow "responive for coming up with the idea, performing the research and development, and constructing the system from the ground floor?"), and tossed it around with malicious glee. Punditry still loves to bring it up, despite it being as old as Gore "information superhighway" phrase.
It was perfectly clear what Gore was NOT talking about even if what he WAS talking about came out sounding odd. But of course that would not be entertaining.
If Bush said the same thing, he would never be allowed off the hook and would receive 10x the bashing. I find it crap, that if Clinton or Gore say something poorly worded and/or easily misinterpreted everyone here tries to defend them.
Actually, he'd be heckled, his quote would be tossed in amongst 1000 other sillified statements he's made, and people wouldn't actually bring it into discussions about his political character and demeanor... It would just be yet another drop in the bucket of things he said that come out wrong, or things he's been similarly quoted out of context TO make him look bad.
Here's the thing, though... It would not have been spread and perpetuated in the press forever and used as an attack point in fueling some weird-ass vision that the guy was any more a huge liar than any other politician and that people must rebel against this Bad Thing(TM) Character Flaw(TM). Hell, Bush's hokey image specifically softballs ANY similar comments he's made--and he's made a ton of them. (As well, since the "Liar" paintbrush was already being used against Gore, for some reason it couldn't be used on all the similar flubs, shifty comments, and outright lies Bush used during his own campain.
I do believe I know where you're coming from, though... since the phrase "attack attack attack" was yet ANOTHER of the catchphrases right-wing media used against Gore perpetually during the campain, even when his comments were on matters of substance and their attacks were matters of trivia.
Gore's comments came out sounding goofy: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our countrys economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
Honestly, you don't use "initiative" that many times in a row on purpose! But certainly he was talking about his role within Congress, the "initiatives" he forwarded, and was highlighting the Internet specifically... I guess because lots of voters like porn.;-)
...and while I don't specifically KNOW Gore's roll in all of this, that liberal bastion himself--Newt Gingrich--had this to say in 2000 (about a year and a half after that flap started): In all fairness, its something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth isand I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a futures groupthe fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the 80s began to actually happen.
Sounds to me like members of congress--friendly or opposition--had similar opinions about his role. It was something they knew, the press knew, and the public should have known... Only that's not nearly as sensationalistic, is it?
What was misleading was the DELIBERATE spin that Rush Limbaugh put on it, when he seized on Gore's legitimate and truthful statement that he took the initiative in creating the Internet in order to ridicule Gore.
While Rush has perpetuated the ridicule longer than most (by merit of his volume of comments), it wasn't he who started the spin. Heck, I think he was even late to the party on perpetuating it. After a few days of the press entirely ignoring his comments (not "ignoring the interview," which they had filed articles on), the RNC tossed their spin points out (via Dick Armey), and a rather scathing little report hit the AP wire--at which point all those in need of a little spice to throw in their papers picked up and ran with it.
That AP article didn't quote Gore in full either, of course, but didn't yet use "intented." The reporter did use her own flavorful language to misrepresent Gore, of course: "...Al Gores claim that he is the father of the Internet..."
I suppose people wouldn't pay attention if anyone used the language and context of what was actually said. Hey, wait... They DIDN'T pay attention!
not exactly the same things, but still it could be taken as misleading.
Yes, but only to people with one-sentence attention spans and/or no inclination to actually look up the factual basis behind endlessly-repeated glurdge. His comments came out poorly (which isn't precisely shocking about politicians, considering how often they're quoted and on the diverse matters they cover. Hell, people create websites to keep track of all their bloopers.;) ) but his follow-up sentence explained pretty clearly what exactly he was referring to.
Sadly, the vast majority of the voting public worship the almighty soundbite and really DON'T like to engage their brains on these matters. Provided a quote, comment, or quip fits their already-established viewpoints... into the repetition-cycle it goes!
This includes any number of comments by Bush, Gore, Clinton, Bush Sr., Quayle, Reagan... and any number of pols stretching back into infinity (though they get less and less quotable the further back you go. Just think how many funny Caesar quotes we had if the internet was around back then!;) ) While Quayle and Bush may take the lead for sheer volume and funny-ess-ness, that's basically what they were... amusing and funny. Gore got twisted and skewed all over the map for some of the most rediculous things ever, and his quotes were never quoted as "Tee-hee! Look at the silly thing this guy said!" but rather "OMGWTFLIARLOLZ!!!"
Too sad... I seriously look forward to the day that the public is more interested in the substance of their lives than entertainment. From politics, at least. ^_^
*grins* No sweat. I don't have any individual devotions in the gaming arena, but I do like to clear up silly things like that. (And there seem to be a lot of people who like to kick on Sony because of their tech specs, but remain notably silent about others with similar tendencies.)
Ultimately it's not going to be the power or any specs in "millions" that make a console win out--those things are for us Slashdot-reading geeks to drool over and then bitch about;-) --but rather the games that hit each system. Do they make that system worth the purchase? I don't think anyone really sits around and chews over the multiplayer titles going "...but the texture resolution will be somewhat better in this scene!" or "5 seconds longer to load...? UNACCEPTABLE!" They're driven by their proprietary games and their overall content, and that's never really going to change.
That being said, ALL the systems have some truly gorgeous and amazing-overall quality games... and we have no idea how many polygons per second they're running at.;-) Play what you like. ^_^
Now I'm not sure what demos may exist for either (I was told by someone who ran a huge amount of Performance Analyzer tests on PS2 games that some code exists that comes close to the theoretical maximums--but that's about as meaningful as my saying one car tire CAN spin at 1,000,000 RPM... but not when it's powered or even attached to my car. Fun geekery, but that's about it.) but if we're talking "real world numbers"... No, the tech specs that get bandied about are utterly useless in making a determination.
...and if one is REALLY wanting to laud a company for it, try Nintendo or Sega, whose aim has been much closer to reality. Microsoft is NOT the company to defend when comparing to Sony in that arena.
Um... There's "functionality" and there's "functioning." On the surface it has more going for it (excepting that you won't have a seamless tie-in with iTunes, which is much of the appeal of Apple products), but will the extra features actually be WORTH it?
Not to mention that there's one other trait we don't know yet that one always needs to take into account... will the LuxPro device actually be the same PRICE? If it's more expensive, then the features are moot--you're paying more for them--and the device comparisons back to where they always are: measuring price, performance, functionality, etc. and determining what's best for you.
Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype
on
Top 10 Apple Flops
·
· Score: 1
Point is they priced the performance they could expect from a G5 solution against other computer solutions and went that route. Some deals are to be expected on bulk purchases like that, but VT had a definite point as to what they could build for how much. It's down to #7 now, but I think it still holds the definitive #1 point on price/performance.
It's simple, easy, and extensively encouraged right now. (Just step onto any of their front pages and you see the Station Access badge, and any time you enter a billing area it will ask you if you want to join directly.)
I joined the instant EQ2 came out (well... after the free month ran out) because I considered it a value just for EQ2 and Planetside and the ability to keep in touch with my EQ friends (and play EQ whenever I felt like it). Adding SWG is just a dream come true. ^_^
The only real problem you'll have is if you signed onto different games with different Station names for some reason... You can only attach the Station Access payments to one account. (Well, you can buy another, but you'll be paying two full SA subscriptions.)
It looks like SOE's going to try to get more clever in drawing profits now, which isn't altogether a bad thing. They draw people into ALL of their games, and then start specifically targetting optional content and enhancements at people that they can pay for how they want. While that has its good sides and its bad sides, I think overall by being able to track what people like and do not like directly will let them better shape MMO's around their audience. Not to mention it will vastly reduce the risk in pursuing one enhancement over another, which should afford them more room to experiment and ultimately filter out to the main sections of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Point is it's not a big deal. It's the same best-selling iPod, only now better in basically every way. And yes, it plays videos.
The only real "big deal" of it is in regards to how it will affect the media distribution model. iTunes single-handed forced legal music into wide acceptance, so what might the industry reaction be in regards to TV/movies/etc?
Of course it also means the video podcasting will be pushed forward en masse.
I don't believe he's talking about video playing on a portable device, but rather the digital distributorship that the end bitching is about: But then who would pay $1.99 to download...?
And they are essentially opening that floodgate.
Who in heck CARES if PVR functionality will come along? (And personally I think it will, and with Apple... The Mac mini is likely to be wedged into a role in the entertainment center anyway, and the iPod in conjunction with it.) What "can be done" or "will be done" isn't the point--it will come in due time (where it isn't already... just little known or able to be noticed); what is important is breaking down the first barriers to electronic distribution so that more barriers will follow. What Apple did with music they may be able to do to video as well, and where THAT will lead is only encouraging.
:P ) and channelled through the undisputed heavyweight champion of the portable music/media devices is the best way to jumpstart what we've ALL been hoping for and bitching about for years.
...not to mention that getting things out faster and more furiously (yeah, yeah... shut it) works well to consumer advantage, as both the content providers and the competitors to Apple in this will jump into it all more blindly than they would have otherwise to try to stay at the head of the game. Which means it's far LESS likely that they'll have thought out how to force all their rights into the distribution channel, or conspire with the media companies to drain us for whatever they can get. Competition in this case will be much more frentic and misdirected... in the way that WE can take advantage of. ;-)
Does it have optimal visual quality, the best distribution format, an open rights management policy, or any of the other issues we can and do think of surrounding this...? Of course not. But getting a top-tier publishing company on board the most popular online music distributor (legal downloads that is... you know what I mean
Good stuff, wot?
Try anyway. My friend caught a break and managed to trade his iPod back in that he got three weeks before the Photo was released.
You should know that iPod's market share in Korea is completely disappointing, and companies like iRiver still sells millions of players every year.
...who knows? There are any number of factors coming into play, I'm sure. But it also shows that if Samsung is really attempting a squeeze play, they're playing a dangerous game. They're not being solidly drubbed themselves, and they're opening the door to a dangerous competitor.
While the iPod has yet to make a dent, you're still overestimating Korea's MP3 market. In 2002, 400k players sold (14% of worldwide sales), 1.1 million in 2003 (15%), 1.8 million in 2004 (7.5%). A good boost is estimated for 2005 - 3.5 million - but that's still only 7% of the estimated 50 million worldwide sales. The iRiver accounted for 1.1m of those Korean sales in 2004 (61%), but that's a far cry from "millions," and it shows that the Korean MP3 market is still in formative states. If indeed iRiver's market share has dropped to 35% according to your article (which shows that the top three sellers barely breach the market position iRiver alone had in 2004) it shows just how much of a flux the NK market is in. Anyone with a good enough product and solid support could make a good showing.
More competition? Fickle consumers? Passing fads?
Personally, I don't think Samsung cares all that much about the korean market. (A desire to pressure Toshiba and Hitachi on the global front is more plausable, however.) It's a nice niche for them, but they're a huge producer of flash memory, and they want in with the biggest player who's going to sell the biggest slice of those ~50m sales this year. Can they get in the nano AND the shuffle AND continue to claim guaranteed sales for every new chip they whip up for as long as the iPod is in the lead? Perhaps they can. That'd certainly be what they want.
On the initial article's comments, though, I don't really know what they mean by "below market costs." Does the government regulate it THAT strictly? Dumping is one thing, but does anyone imagine for a second that Samsung wants to lose money on tens of millions of chips? Competitive pricing just makes sense, but unless discounts are specifically against korean trade laws... Just who is bringing up what, and why?
As for your last paragraph, Microsoft's "superior engineering"?
I do believe he's just making wry commentary on the likelihood of their positions swapping in ALL cases. And there's certainly something to be said for that, as an unchallengable market leader tends to stagnate while the up-and-coming try to compete on whatever grounds they can.
If Mac OS had become the dominant platform back in the day instead of Windows, you'd all be talking about Microsoft's superior engineering and decrying Apples anti-competetive tactics.
;-) But I wouldn't put too much behind a statement like "There's a reason Apple was the only one to put out a small/sleek player when everyone else was still putting out clunky nightmares"... The original iPods still looked, felt, and functioned much better than the competition, and after those 1.8" drives hit wider availability said competition STILL hadn't whipped up anything much that's par, let alone a few swings under.
;-)
You got that right.
Those talking about Apple's superior engineering and aesthetics still have quite the point.
...why do so many people point to line transition costs as a hugely important factor? Are publishers going to be DUMPING DVD lines right now to pick up HD lines? It seems rather foolish that they would toss their breadwinner away to move to any of the undecided formats, so it seems more likely that they'd want to pick up whatever ones would be more easily added to their existing facilities (i.e. "take up less space"), what ones would start off having higher capacities so they can kick next-gen support out the door well, and what ones seem to show more promise 5-10 years from now when they actually WILL be cutting back on some DVD support.
Hopefully it takes a normal 3.5" IDE drive just like the PS2 does.
It does not.
2.5" internal, and easily-swappable like the 360's. (I do believe it's aimed at an internal bay and not attached to the outside, though.)
It is, however, supposedly going to be a much larger drive (rumored 80GB, but who knows?) and come with Linux pre-installed (and hopefully a useful suite of apps and PVR-type software) to be a more interesting optional add-on, though. Hopefully they won't fart around with it like the PS2's drive so that it'll be actively pursued by developers and made useful for we consumers.
But batteries will cost you $50
Yeah... That's certainly slowed down cell phone growth, hasn't it?
Family Guy broke form, so let's all hope and pray that Serenity succeeds past expectations, and Firefly drums up enough viewers with a proper treatment to return to television anew!
If Firefly AND Battlestar Galactica were to continue on for years to come, I just might be happy about sci-fi again!
Disney is simply delivering what American parents want.
...and yet parents are simply not bringing their kids to Disney films anymore, so this comment certainly isn't the case. They might still be conforming to "the idea," but theyre not delivering anything in reality, so they certainly DO have to figure out what to change.
I think you answered that in your first sentence, eh?
What difference does it make wether I say "I invented the phonograph", or "I created the phonograph"?
;-) ) Ah, that word "create"... Perhaps in the full context of his statements that's what they would have come up with? I think that rather likely. The word "invent," however...? It really only conjurs up one image. And for that knowingly incorrect image to be used, that's the word of choice.
Because he said neither. He said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Which, while unwieldy and potentially confusing, is certainly not the same thing. The fact that his quote was continually stripped of context AND changed to "invented" (most articles simply offered that one word in quotes when referring to his whole commentary) was simply to leave no doubt in people's minds the impression they were TRYING to give. Certainly if all he said was "I created the Internet" that could be as confusing... but of course he didn't.
The fact that the press shortened his whole quote to only what they liked is telling--and they do it way too often for way too many people. The fact that you continue to use it as well is also telling.
Is there such a thing as downtime for an important public servant? Count the number of Congressmen who developed technology while they served in Congress and were publicly-recognized for it? Who just have their name in a patent or trademark? Heck, if you extend it through their whole lifespans and not just their stint in Congress, does it look much better?
Now, after you've scoured Google for an hour or so trying to find SOMEthing useful, just what do you think the public at large knows without ANY of that? (Oh yes, and do try to leave the 18th century. They could indeed pick out people like Franklin and Jefferson, but I do believe some modern relevance is in order.)
People DO, however, know that what politicians do is create policy--that being built into their name and all. (Though frankly I think more people think politicians "create messes" and "spend their money stupidly" at this point.
Your mention of the New Deal is also interesting here, since it much more supports my posit than yours. The New Deal was a high-minded, broad-reaching set of policies and expenditures of public capital to promote growth in the certain areas, provide jobs, provide security... It was a governmental plan, and though FDR gets the credit of driving it through, do you think anyone really believe he sat at a typewriter and typed the whole gameplan up himself, soup to nuts, without consulting any advisors, working with political allies and enemies to see what was feasable and acceptable, and without wanting any other feedback? Because that's STILL what you're claiming when you say Gore's (still creatively edited) quote only had one real interpretation by the public at large.
The public, however, is entirely used to presidents--for instance--taking credit for anything that happens under their watch, whether they know any of the history of how it came to pass, and said presidents will certainly use it in their campaign stomping... and you know what? Huge sections of the press aren't of the habit of hopping up and down on their comments personally and declaring it a mental or personality defect.
When Bush would claim victory for certain outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan, did people believe he wrote up the battle plans, trained the troops, and handled the logistics himself? Or perhaps do they recognize that he was the forefront personality to drive the war effort forward, so lay the praise or blame at his desk? Similarly, then, if Gore claims that within the Congress he "took the initiative in creating the Internet"--something which is more recognized as a broad concept and public service and not simply a collection of wires and data packets--why would they instantly think he was talking about ONLY the creation of the technolog
Um... Just how long did it take you to work up that werid-ass application of logic and seriously... are you joking? They press did him a favor by changing it to "invented" (which calls to mind people like Franklin and Edison) instead of using his whole quote? And yes, I DO mean his whole quote, not just the part you wanted to highlight. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
;-) ) This is pretty much what you're pointing at when you say "within the United States Congress" or immediately start talking about "moving forward a while range of initiatives." Doing what Congress does. Or did Gore also think he created the concepts of economic growth and environmental protection?
Tell me, just how many people believe that Congress has a technology research lab downstairs for their members to use on their downtime to invent important new things for the public's interest? How many members of congress came from engineering backgrounds because they wanted to put their technical prowess to good use?
People policy, it can advance certain technologies by granting it more federal funding, and--yes--politicians who were heavily involved in (or hell, even scantly involved so long as their names are attached to a few bills) like to take credit for those things that pan out. (And make sure not to mention those things that were a bad idea for them to support.
Do you honestly think that Gore was trying to set forth that he created the underlying technological backbone that was the Internet, ARPANet, et al? Considering that the concept is ludicrous, just possibly might he have been talking about it differently? It's not like the "Internet" means one thing specifically. It is not the same thing as ARPANet, it is not simply TCP/IP packets and ethernet cable... The general public (to whom he was addressing his comments) recognizes it pretty much as "the way we send email to gramma (and get porn), buy stuff from Amazon (in-between getting porn), and auction stuff on eBay (after which... porn!)." We did not get there because because a bunch of scientists who were sharing research data with each other thought it would be a kickin' idea to open it up to everyone on earth, and their companies decided to shoulder the expense of bringing it to the people themselves.
So was Gore out of line in saying it was through his effort that Congress pushed forth policies to bring "what we now know as the Internet" to us? Creating the broad landscape we were using every day from the private scientific/educational underpinnings? Offhand I'm not sure, but that it what was worthy of discussion by the press, instead of the ridicule-storm that erupted. Certainly politicians, press, and inventors OF actual internet technologies recognize the efforts he set forth, and think things would have been different if he hadn't been.
However, the press morphed it almost instantly into a character flaw attack, misquoted him in a what that specifically calls to EVERYONE'S attention that he must have been talking about the technology itself since they used "invent" and stripped out all othe context (After all, Bush has taken credit for "creating" the Department of Homeland Security and other departments, fiscal policies and matters of public interest... Do people actually think he was somehow "responive for coming up with the idea, performing the research and development, and constructing the system from the ground floor?"), and tossed it around with malicious glee. Punditry still loves to bring it up, despite it being as old as Gore "information superhighway" phrase.
It was perfectly clear what Gore was NOT talking about even if what he WAS talking about came out sounding odd. But of course that would not be entertaining.
If Bush said the same thing, he would never be allowed off the hook and would receive 10x the bashing. I find it crap, that if Clinton or Gore say something poorly worded and/or easily misinterpreted everyone here tries to defend them.
;-)
...and while I don't specifically KNOW Gore's roll in all of this, that liberal bastion himself--Newt Gingrich--had this to say in 2000 (about a year and a half after that flap started): In all fairness, its something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth isand I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a futures groupthe fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the 80s began to actually happen.
Actually, he'd be heckled, his quote would be tossed in amongst 1000 other sillified statements he's made, and people wouldn't actually bring it into discussions about his political character and demeanor... It would just be yet another drop in the bucket of things he said that come out wrong, or things he's been similarly quoted out of context TO make him look bad.
Here's the thing, though... It would not have been spread and perpetuated in the press forever and used as an attack point in fueling some weird-ass vision that the guy was any more a huge liar than any other politician and that people must rebel against this Bad Thing(TM) Character Flaw(TM). Hell, Bush's hokey image specifically softballs ANY similar comments he's made--and he's made a ton of them. (As well, since the "Liar" paintbrush was already being used against Gore, for some reason it couldn't be used on all the similar flubs, shifty comments, and outright lies Bush used during his own campain.
I do believe I know where you're coming from, though... since the phrase "attack attack attack" was yet ANOTHER of the catchphrases right-wing media used against Gore perpetually during the campain, even when his comments were on matters of substance and their attacks were matters of trivia.
Gore's comments came out sounding goofy: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our countrys economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
Honestly, you don't use "initiative" that many times in a row on purpose! But certainly he was talking about his role within Congress, the "initiatives" he forwarded, and was highlighting the Internet specifically... I guess because lots of voters like porn.
Sounds to me like members of congress--friendly or opposition--had similar opinions about his role. It was something they knew, the press knew, and the public should have known... Only that's not nearly as sensationalistic, is it?
I'm sure glad people use "fags" as an insult, as it's quite an easy way to filter out the people you most want to ignore.
There'd be a whole lot of power and volume, but sadly it would give off just too much heat.
What was misleading was the DELIBERATE spin that Rush Limbaugh put on it, when he seized on Gore's legitimate and truthful statement that he took the initiative in creating the Internet in order to ridicule Gore.
While Rush has perpetuated the ridicule longer than most (by merit of his volume of comments), it wasn't he who started the spin. Heck, I think he was even late to the party on perpetuating it. After a few days of the press entirely ignoring his comments (not "ignoring the interview," which they had filed articles on), the RNC tossed their spin points out (via Dick Armey), and a rather scathing little report hit the AP wire--at which point all those in need of a little spice to throw in their papers picked up and ran with it.
That AP article didn't quote Gore in full either, of course, but didn't yet use "intented." The reporter did use her own flavorful language to misrepresent Gore, of course: "...Al Gores claim that he is the father of the Internet..."
I suppose people wouldn't pay attention if anyone used the language and context of what was actually said. Hey, wait... They DIDN'T pay attention!
I took the initiative in creating the Internet
;) ) but his follow-up sentence explained pretty clearly what exactly he was referring to.
;) ) While Quayle and Bush may take the lead for sheer volume and funny-ess-ness, that's basically what they were... amusing and funny. Gore got twisted and skewed all over the map for some of the most rediculous things ever, and his quotes were never quoted as "Tee-hee! Look at the silly thing this guy said!" but rather "OMGWTFLIARLOLZ!!!"
not exactly the same things, but still it could be taken as misleading.
Yes, but only to people with one-sentence attention spans and/or no inclination to actually look up the factual basis behind endlessly-repeated glurdge. His comments came out poorly (which isn't precisely shocking about politicians, considering how often they're quoted and on the diverse matters they cover. Hell, people create websites to keep track of all their bloopers.
Sadly, the vast majority of the voting public worship the almighty soundbite and really DON'T like to engage their brains on these matters. Provided a quote, comment, or quip fits their already-established viewpoints... into the repetition-cycle it goes!
This includes any number of comments by Bush, Gore, Clinton, Bush Sr., Quayle, Reagan... and any number of pols stretching back into infinity (though they get less and less quotable the further back you go. Just think how many funny Caesar quotes we had if the internet was around back then!
Too sad... I seriously look forward to the day that the public is more interested in the substance of their lives than entertainment. From politics, at least. ^_^
*grins* No sweat. I don't have any individual devotions in the gaming arena, but I do like to clear up silly things like that. (And there seem to be a lot of people who like to kick on Sony because of their tech specs, but remain notably silent about others with similar tendencies.)
;-) --but rather the games that hit each system. Do they make that system worth the purchase? I don't think anyone really sits around and chews over the multiplayer titles going "...but the texture resolution will be somewhat better in this scene!" or "5 seconds longer to load...? UNACCEPTABLE!" They're driven by their proprietary games and their overall content, and that's never really going to change.
;-) Play what you like. ^_^
Ultimately it's not going to be the power or any specs in "millions" that make a console win out--those things are for us Slashdot-reading geeks to drool over and then bitch about
That being said, ALL the systems have some truly gorgeous and amazing-overall quality games... and we have no idea how many polygons per second they're running at.
You're right, they didn't claim 66 million. They claimed 300 million at GDC 2000, downgraded it to 125 million at launch (100+ million sustained transformed and lit polygons), and--exactly like the PS2--come nowhere near those numbers.
...and if one is REALLY wanting to laud a company for it, try Nintendo or Sega, whose aim has been much closer to reality. Microsoft is NOT the company to defend when comparing to Sony in that arena.
Now I'm not sure what demos may exist for either (I was told by someone who ran a huge amount of Performance Analyzer tests on PS2 games that some code exists that comes close to the theoretical maximums--but that's about as meaningful as my saying one car tire CAN spin at 1,000,000 RPM... but not when it's powered or even attached to my car. Fun geekery, but that's about it.) but if we're talking "real world numbers"... No, the tech specs that get bandied about are utterly useless in making a determination.
Um... There's "functionality" and there's "functioning." On the surface it has more going for it (excepting that you won't have a seamless tie-in with iTunes, which is much of the appeal of Apple products), but will the extra features actually be WORTH it?
Not to mention that there's one other trait we don't know yet that one always needs to take into account... will the LuxPro device actually be the same PRICE? If it's more expensive, then the features are moot--you're paying more for them--and the device comparisons back to where they always are: measuring price, performance, functionality, etc. and determining what's best for you.
Point is they priced the performance they could expect from a G5 solution against other computer solutions and went that route. Some deals are to be expected on bulk purchases like that, but VT had a definite point as to what they could build for how much. It's down to #7 now, but I think it still holds the definitive #1 point on price/performance.
It's simple, easy, and extensively encouraged right now. (Just step onto any of their front pages and you see the Station Access badge, and any time you enter a billing area it will ask you if you want to join directly.)
I joined the instant EQ2 came out (well... after the free month ran out) because I considered it a value just for EQ2 and Planetside and the ability to keep in touch with my EQ friends (and play EQ whenever I felt like it). Adding SWG is just a dream come true. ^_^
The only real problem you'll have is if you signed onto different games with different Station names for some reason... You can only attach the Station Access payments to one account. (Well, you can buy another, but you'll be paying two full SA subscriptions.)
It looks like SOE's going to try to get more clever in drawing profits now, which isn't altogether a bad thing. They draw people into ALL of their games, and then start specifically targetting optional content and enhancements at people that they can pay for how they want. While that has its good sides and its bad sides, I think overall by being able to track what people like and do not like directly will let them better shape MMO's around their audience. Not to mention it will vastly reduce the risk in pursuing one enhancement over another, which should afford them more room to experiment and ultimately filter out to the main sections of the game.