Firefly the series is the 6th most popular DVD sale at Amazon.com and Serenity is the most popular DVD sale on Amazon.com today. How do you define a hit?
Or maybe we're tired of the last decade of Simpson style jokes set in different places(Family guy, American dad, Simpsons and Futurama) and they should try something new? I'm surprized people haven't noticed that animation can be more than slap-stick with a morale tale attached, or a rip off of Japanese cartoons with the same depth as the 80s action figure whoring shows.
The Simpsons has remained popular for so long because it is funny, and because it is funny on multiple levels. The writers make a specific effort to write jokes that will last, and the majority of the humor does not depend upon knowledge of pop culture. Futurama makes that same effort, and combines it with a very scientific oriented intellectualism. When was the last time you heard jokes during prime time that relied upon the audience understanding the basics of quantum physics or for that matter even knowing what "pi" is? The family guy seem to be variations and/or attempts to discover the "formula" behind the Simpsons, but it is not a formulaic show; and I don't think it is fair to claim that because Futurama is animated, and shares many attributes with the Simpsons that it is unoriginal. Compared to the reality TV show of the week, or the latest sitcom about a family or a bunch of pretty and hip young people in the city, Futurama is a breath of fresh air. I just wish there was more television that was intellectual, rather than dumbed down for the least common denominator or reliant upon pop culture. Shakespeare's work is timeless because it was written to appeal to multiple audiences. He made sure to have his "high" humor witticisms and historical settings and references to appeal to his first run, patronage. He also made sure to include a fair share of physical comedy/action and "common man" type characters to broaden the appeal for presentations to the rest of the people. In 100 years people will still be able to laugh about quantum physics and pi, but they won't know or care who Ashlee Simpson is.
Exactly where is the relation between human-computer interaction and HTML code compliance?
Actually, there is a big relationship between the two. Using standardized markup is a big focus for usability and human-computer interaction experts, because there is no way to be certain how a given human will want to experience information. Using standards allows screen readers, braille boards, vision impaired, and other interfaces to work properly. It also allows alternate input methods, not only for the impaired, but for new technology and specialized interfaces. If a human-computer interaction expert can't code their own information for use by the large and growing physically impaired community they certainly lose credibility with me. And for any of us using a custom input devices, like a stylus, chorded mouse, voice interface, or who rely upon machines to parse and preprocess text standardized formats are very important.
According to here at imdb, the film was budgeted at around $40 million USD and only took in around $30 million USD worldwide.
Their numbers look a little out of date, as the production budget was 39 million and the total gross, worldwide is at 38 million right now. Still, your point is well taken. While this film will likely break even and make a small profit in the next few years of DVD sales, it is by no means a sure thing to find funding for another medium-low budget film like this one.
I actually wonder about this movie. I know the series has a large, cult following. Several friends of mine, however, expressed frustration that the movie was not playing anywhere near them. One friend lives in a typical medium sized town with a six screen theater, that never showed the film. The other lives in a slightly larger town with three theaters and a very large engineering university. They also did not have the film come to any of the theaters. This makes me wonder about the cause and effect. Did the movie perform poorly, and thus was not brought to many theaters, or was it not brought to many theaters, and thus did poorly?
I disagree. In most markets the popularity of a product drives sales, which in turn determines if an item will continue to be available. Up until the publishing of series on DVD became popular, however, this mechanism was completely absent from the television market. Since no one could buy just the shows they wanted, decisions about whether or not to cancel a show were made based upon guesswork and Nielson ratings. In most cases this is still true. Now, TV executives are starting to get feedback via DVD sales indicating that they have been making really crappy decisions, including canceling some of the most popular shows. This is just the invisible hand of the market using greed to give people what they want. If we really want better quality shows, the answer is simple. Move to a model where shows are purchased individually and let the market decide. Personally, I'd much rather that greed drives TV executives to give people what they want, rather than greed driving them to make arbitrary guesses without any feedback.
As an aside, guess how many of the ten most popular TV series of all time were cancelled, or scheduled to be cancelled, and then saved at the last minute by some random event? TV executives tend to cancel anything different or novel, since it seems risky. DVD sales, like those of Futurama, are just a way for them to be told not to cancel something different, since it is in demand.
According to the article, Futurama is getting resurrected because of high syndication ratings and a large number of DVD sales. I love Firefly, but it doesn't have either one of those going for it.
Firefly was (at one time) in the top 10 DVDs on Barnes and Noble and in the top 50 on Amazon, the only two major retail outlets to publish their sales statistics. I'd say that is pretty popular for the series. The movie did alright at the box office, but nothing spectacular. It certainly did well enough so that Whedon can get funding for another if he is so inclined. I doubt we'll see a revival of the series, but it is certainly not out of the question.
I'd hardly say that's the motivation in most cases. I really doubt that girls are fleeing out of high school and getting into whatever program they can find that will net them a husband and then transferring out. Joining the cheerleading squad is hardly the same as getting yourself into a four-five year degree just so you can find a husband.
Perhaps not, but a significant number of people go to a college or university because it is expected of them. A non-consequential number either do not have any real plan for their degree when they start school, or have an idea that does not require a degree. Believe it or not, but a significant portion of the population (especially among those that can afford a higher education) still adhere at least somewhat to the belief in an atomic household, with a stay-at-home parent. For the record, I am not one of them. Nonetheless, in my experience it is possible that this could make up a significant portion of the discrepancy in the percentage of male and female students that graduate with a CS degree. When faced with a more or less arbitrary choice, it is conceivable that a person might choose the one that offers them the best prospects for meeting someone. It is, after all, one of the primary themes and behaviors of our species.
Most of the female students I know in computer science are there to learn. Several of us women in computer science are already married and didn't need to go into CS to meet men. I will go even farther in saying if I was single, I wouldn't date any of my fellow students.
I agree that most women are probably in classes to learn, rather than to meet someone. What I was saying was that there is some percentage for whom that is not true and that percentage may or may not make up some of the discrepancy that explains why more women drop out of CS. I imagine this is true in any field where one gender is under represented. Anecdotally, I know one young lady who went into CS because she wanted to go to a particular university, but they did not offer interior design and she thought one of her brother's friends in CS was cute. I know another person who told me she went into the field because it was interesting but said she probably wouldn't finish because she planned to get married and become a home maker. Try not to take either my anecdotes or this possible explanation as a personal attack. It is just one possible explanation.
Yeah, I went to a large, engineering university. The gender ratio was worse than that for the entire student body, and much, much lower in the hard sciences.
So they are more likely to be dissuaded from pursuing computer science if they are exposed to an unpleasant environment, bad teaching, and negative stereotypes like the image of the male hacker.'
I don't know if the number is statistically significant, but from my own anecdotal experience I know a number of women who went into CS because of the gender difference and because they were more interested in finding a financially stable husband than in learning about computer science. I know several women who became engaged and/or married and then switched degrees or dropped out. I imagine the same is true, in reverse, for certain fields dominated by women. I know at least one guy who joined the cheerleading squad to meet women.
I did not see an exception for security cameras. Does this mean that in five years I'll be able to go into a new bank with some LEDs on my hat and the police will have no record of my visit, since their recording gear will refuse to record? Alternately, pirates can always just buy hi-res security cameras to record video. Heck, what happens if someone brings a portable DVD player into the bank? What happens to the security cameras at Best Buy, in the video department?
This law is in no way designed to go after the big guys. It's all about the small fish and keeping them in check.
This is not designed to stop pirating at all. Small scale pirating does not lose the media companies a significant amount and even a medium sized operation can manage to find old hardware or foreign hardware without these restrictions. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the next media format and hardware has no way to import your current media, thus forcing you to buy yet another copy of the music, book, or song you already own. That is big money and that is diametrically opposed to the interests of these politicians supposed constituents. That is also why this crap is always presented as a piracy issue, rather than what it really is. Please stop believing their lies.
No, there's not a big difference. The only difference is one of chance. If Sun discovers they have patents on technology covered by ODF, it's the same situation. The question becomes, do you want to gamble on whether sun will discover such patents or not.
You don't see a difference between, "Sun might find patents that apply and might not decide to let them be used in a future version the spec (inconveniencing themselves in the process)" and "MS has patents that specifically apply which they are already using to restrict people and which they can use to close the spec at any time?"
The "open" in "open source" and "open standard" means the same thing, it's just whether or not it applies to a standard or source. Being GPL compatible doesn't determine whether something is open or not.
No, but not being GPL compatible is pretty good indication that a format is not open to use. But all of that is semantics. What we are interested in is not having a word, we are interested in the benefits a truly open standard can bring, including competition among vendors, no lock-in, and guaranteed backwards compatibility and legal data access in the future. The Open Document spec guarantees all of these things, while the Open XML spec and accompanying licensing seems designed to prevent them.
If MS complies with government requirements to implement an approved open spec by implementing the Open Document spec what will happen? Well, Word will have to compete on its merits against Open Office and other applications. In ten years I can be certain I'll be able to read documents created in that specification. And if I ever want to I know I can switch applications without much pain.
If MS convinces the world that its Open XML spec is "good enough" what will happen. Word will not have to compete on a level field against Open Office, KOffice, and and most open source word processors, since those programs will not be able to implement the Open XML format legally. MS will have the option of legally closing the spec in the future and banning distribution of existing implementations, thus offering me no guarantee that I will be able to open a document in the future. I might be able to switch to a different application, but I have no guarantees of that.
Call it what you like, but it has none of the important benefits that have motivated various governments and companies to demand an open specification.
The GPL explictly defines the conditions upon which patented work is compatible with the GPL.
I'll say this again, slowly. The GPL is a license to redistribute a copyrighted work. It applies only to copyrighted works. Neither Open Document or Open XML is copyrighted. The GPL limits whether or not someone may redistribute GPL code after adding more code that runs afoul of a patent. It does not limit any new works, only modifications of the old works. Hence if a format can only be implemented by using a patent that is not licensed, the GPL cannot stop you from writing a new application using any license you want, including the GPL, to implement that format.
Open office is distributed under the LGPL, and thus Sun has agreed to whatever terms are necessary to redistribute their and other people's work under it, including any patent issues. The document linked to earlier was the patent agreement Sun signed to satisfy OASIS and get the format approved as a standard. Sun is bound by both.
Look lawyers from numerous companies have looked at the legal issues for the Open Document format, and then it was implemented by a half a dozen different companies and groups. Many of those same lawyers have looked at the Open XML licensing and said, "we can't implement this legally." Are you telling me they are all wrong and you know better?
Just admit it, The MS license is not "open enough" to bring the main benefits people want. MS is just trying to confuse others with their naming, that may not understand what the benefits trying to be achieved are.
find it interesting that you are so meticulous about interpreting Microsoft's license, yet you seem to ignore entirely Sun's license and patent covenent which contains very similar "loopholes". For instance, Sun's patent covenent promises not to sue anyone *SO LONG A SUN IS PARTICIPATING* in that version of OpenDocument.
First, MS has applied for and been granted patents on the format itself in multiple jurisdictions. Sun has not patented the Open Office format. The license you are referring to discusses technologies that may be utilized by the format, not the format itself. Second, Sun has promised not to sue anyone for using any of their patents that might cover technology in the Open Office spec, because that is what OASIS requires. It does not imply that any such technologies exist. Third, regarding the participation clause, no company in their right mind would cede all their patent rights for all technology arbitrarily. The participation clause allows Sun to decline the option to participate in a new version of the standard, thus preventing someone from arbitrarily inserting random patented technology in a new version of the spec, and thus gaining access to any of Suns patents, license free.
There is a big difference between an agreement that says if any patents conflict with a format they won't be enforced and a patented format, licensed with restrictions. There is a huge difference between the ability to not release a new version of a format from patent protection and the ability to arbitrarily rescind a license to a format. If Sun decided not to participate in a future version of Open Office any company that has implemented old versions are still free to do so and new programs are free to implement them for backwards compatibility. If MS releases a new version of the "Open XML" spec no one is free to keep distributing old word processors or implement new word processors that can use that format for backwards compatibility, save at MS's whim. If you don't see the practical difference then you're either dense or being paid not to see it.
So, for example, if Sun decided they didn't like the direction of OpenDocument 1.1, they could stop participating and then sue anyone for "suddenly discovered" patents.
Sun can only sue if they have patents covered by a new version of the spec that they are not implementing (none are known) and if other companies then go ahead and implement that spec. The reason for this restriction on their patent protection license was already explained above.
Additionally, the "openness" of something has nothing to do with whether or not it's GPL compatible. There are many open source (and even Free, according the Free Software Foundation) licenses that are not GPL compatible. The Mozilla Public License, for instance.
You're confusing "open" and "open source." Open source means you can view the code. Open means the format is unencumbered and freely implementable by all. An open standard is one that can be implemented by anyone. A closed standard is one that must be licensed and is subject to restrictions. The Open Document standard is open. No license is needed to implement it, and the various companies that submitted the standard have pledged that if any of their patents cover items within it, they won't enforce them (to prevent submarine patenting). MS, on the other hand, admits to having patented the "Open XML" spec, and further has placed restriction on how that spec can be used (singling out certain software licenses for specific exclusion).
I'm also skeptical that Sun's license is GPL compatible either, since they impose the additional requirement of granting Sun reciprocal patent rights (explictly Sun, not necessarily others), which violates the "no additional restrictions" clause of the GPL.
A document format cannot be (by definition) GPL compatible. The GPL covers source code and redistribution of binaries. That is copyright law, not patent law. Nothing prevents GPL programs from implemen
Multiple, competing open standards are fine, and being open it is usually not too difficult to translate between them. Unfortunately MS's "Open XML" standard is not open, so they are not really giving us the choice they are claiming. Open XML is format that is patented and that is licensed with a variety of important restrictions. For example, only the current version is covered by the license, it expires immediately should a new version come out. According to the letter of the license this means the benefits of backwards compatibility and even the ability to distribute a program from one day to the next are subject to MS's whim. Should MS release a new version that is intentionally broken, they could legally restrict competitors from continuing to sell or even give away a word processor.
Redistribution is completely forbidden by the licensing, leading many to believe that it was specifically designed to exclude GNU licensed applications, like Open Office, their primary competitor. How can anyone call "Open XML" and open format when the license under which that format is offered means it can't be implemented by OpenOffice?
All of this is MS marketing FUD. Closed is open. Bad is good. Ha ha we made it really hard for you to explain shit to your managers by naming our product the opposite of what it is. This is like GM calling the next iteration of their traditional cargo van "Hybrid Luxury Mobile" despite it not having a hybrid engine or any luxury features. Don't fall for their crap.
The nice thing about britannica is that though it is imperfect, I have seen few cases of pervasive campaigns of misinformation.
While I agree with much of your sentiment, I'm not sure I can agree with the above statement. Have you read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia has so many more eyes on it, and from such a different audience than the encyclopedia Britiannica, I'm not sure that anecdotal evidence is really valid. For all I know, the Encyclopedia Britannica regularly engages in campaigns of misinformation, but due to their audience for that section, it has not been brought to my attention. Of course all of this just stresses the need to have multiple references and to validate the sources of information. As Wikipedia becomes more mainstream it will certainly require more moderation and versioning.
Encyclopedias are meant to be concise and to the point. A starting point for research, not a be-all and end-all. And I don't agree with normalizing errors to the length of the article, it should be the number of errors per article. Just because you wrote more stuff it doesn't give you the leeway to screw up more...
I don't know about you, but for me, more content on a subject is better. Especially if that content is written properly, with the most important/general information first and more detailed information following. If you want a meaningful metric it should be errors/information imparted.
For example. According to the metric used in the test referenced the phrases "Dogs are canines. These mammals have three legs." would score as 1 error for 8 words. While "Dogs are three legged mammals" would score one error for five words. We can all see that is non really a proper measure. Your proposed method, however, would rate both articles as one error for one article, which is also improper since the second article contains more information that the first. A more meaningful (but harder to generate) metric would be errors per pertinent fact. That would rate the above articles as 1 error for 2 facts and 1 error for 3 facts, respectively. More words are not necessarily beneficial, but I'd rather reward more content (especially for a medium like an online encyclopedia) than punish it. One of the things I appreciate about Wikipedia is that the content on certain topics is exhaustive, providing a much more meaningful and complete understanding of a topic than a traditional encyclopedia.
free-games usually lack decent artwork or decent menus or whatnot... they even lack decent stories.
There are two ways to solve this. One is to develop GUI dev environments that make it easy for non-programmers, like writers and artists to create good, playable games. The second is to recruit artists and writers for open source projects. This means going to forums for graphics and writing and asking for volunteers and then treating those people as first class citizens. Posting on a programming forum is not enough.
One of the most talented graphic artists I know decided one day to put together some textures and models and donate them to an open source project he had heard about. He read some of the forums for a while and put together some material, which he then posted. He was flamed by no less than five people for posting textures in the wrong file format, none of whom bothered to mention or answer queries about what the desired format was and none of that information was available anywhere in the sparse documentation for the project. Aside from the flames, he was given no responses of any kind to his posting. After a few days of silence, he gave up and that project lost a valuable resource that might have solved one of the biggest hurdles for open source games.
Artists and writers will have to be recruited and treated better than that if there is to be any hope for open source games. You can have a great game with a simple engine and rudimentary graphics, but even the best graphics and the most advanced engine is no fun without a good story, or gameplay.
MTV is not a record label, they don't have any music artists signed to them. They'll have to secure a licensing agreement for each and every song to get music to this service. That means not only does MTV/M$ get a cut, the labels get a cut. And from their history of whining about iTunes, they'll demand a hefty cut. It's no surprise that the prices haven't been announced yet, I doubt they'll be able to compete with iTunes with so many hands in the pie.
That depends a lot upon MS. MS may, for example, take only a token cut, while at the same time absorbing all the distribution costs like bandwidth, servers, employees, etc. Why would MS do that? They might do that because they can just roll the costs into the price of Windows (monopoly power) and because it will make them more money in the future. They want to kill the iTunes store and kill the.mp4 format. Both lend money and power to an organization that threatens their core monopoly. Also, with their own, proprietary, format and DRM established as the only/priomary format they can easily make it hard for users to migrate away and can take a licensing cut (of pretty much whatever amount they want) from each music sale from any company. CDs will include windows media files as well so they get a cut of the hard copy sales. And the record industry is trapped paying because they can't afford to try to get customers to move to something else that for some reason won't work on Windows and will require customers to re-purchase all their old music.
MS+MTV won't be profitable compared to iTunes, but that does not mean they can't undersell them.
Depite all the likely flames about big global beasties taking over the world, what's really so bad about this. Consider what happens if Sony ever succeeds in this area and end up with control of the Artist right through to the device, then there just isn't any consumer choice, Artists are forced to sign up with Sony and consumers are forced to sign up with Sony devices.
So your argument is that it is likely that Sony will leverage their non-monopoly music business (part of a cartel) and their non-monopoly hardware business to forma a monopoly on hardware and music. And you think this is more likely than the possibility that MS, who has a monopoly, will be able to leverage that monopoly to gain a music distribution monopoly. Here's a clue. If Sony tries to take over the music distribution business, they have to fight not only Apple but all their RIAA partners. If MS wants to take over the music business they just have to leverage their existing monopoly. Can you say, "free three year subscription with each copy of Windows?" I knew you could. Sony is a threat to the free market as part of a cartel and as a huge player, but they are unlikely to be able to simultaneously suppress all the other hardware and music distribution companies. Aside from Apple's format, MS has already taken over the legal music distribution format. That's right, if not for Apples strategic move, all music would be distributed in a format completely controlled by MS already. How far is it from there to discriminatory licensing of that format compared to MS's own use in their own service? MS is the much larger threat right now.
The quality is much less than a regular CD. 128kbs my ass
I think I covered that when I said, "The trade off with iTunes is the quality is slightly less than a regular CD..." Of course the occasional song has a higher bitrate. For the car, I can't tell any difference at all due to all the road/wind noise. At home I can tell the difference. It is still better than MP3s at the same rate, but noticeably worse than CDs, for most songs. At one of my noisy parties, no one can tell, and when the choice is a iTunes store purchase, or getting nothing while I wait for it to show up on the shelves at the used CD shops, or online, well I'm definitely going with something.
But I'd still rather have a CD than download directly from iTunes. Then I can move my material from device to device as the media changes.
It's mp3 this year but who knows what audio format is coming around next year? Are you going to be able to play your iTunes downloads 10 years from now?
Have you ever bought anything from the iTunes store? I've bought a few songs I could not find easily elsewhere; perhaps two albums worth. Every time it reminds you to back up your new music. What is the easiest way to do that with iTunes? You burn a CD. And that is just what I did. So yeah, I think my iTunes music will be just as playable in the future as CDs are.
The trade off with iTunes is the quality is slightly less than a regular CD, although the price is usually slightly better, the granularity is better, and the availability and instant download is much easier than hunting through stores or waiting for a CD to ship. Future compatibility is a non-issue. Used CDs and non-DRM downloads are usually a better deal though.
I used to live in a small town with a large engineering university. It was used as a test market by many of the larger companies in the US because they could get a good handle on the male 18-27 demographic (Think 3 or more males for every female in town). For some reason none of the foods I liked ever made it into production. I must have unusual tastes. I even liked "Dr. Slice" a strange reddish soda that may or may not have been a mix of Dr. Pepper and ruby red slice. It mixed great with rum.
...Coca-Cola Zero uses the full name because it's a diet that tastes like regular!
No, it doesn't. I tried a sip of one the other day. Here's a tip for all those soda recipe makers out there. If you don't want it to taste diet, don't put aspartame in it. Sucralose/Splenda is just fine. Putting in less sugar/corn syrup is fine. Hell I'd be happy if they took the old recipe, and replaced the sugar with 75% as much sucralose. Just don't don't don't put that nasty aspartame crap in it. I mean what is the point of using multiple sugar substitutes... so you can get the aftertaste of all of them? Man that stuff is nasty.
Videos, commentary, unreleased songs can easily be done with enhanced CD.
It's not about what can be done with the existing format, its about what is not there now, but can be added to a new format to entice people to move to that format. You can add deleted scenes and extra commentary to the end of a VCR (and a small portion of them had that) but it was used to convince people to buy a DVD version of a movie they already owned. If nothing else there is always the fact that CDs become scratched and die and these companies have particular content locked down, so they can just refuse to release anything in the old format, once they get a good number of people to switch. People have said the current format was all they would ever need for every format; records, reel-to-reel, 8-track, and cassette before getting to CDs. They were wrong then and you're wrong now.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefly is obviously not a huge hit.
Firefly the series is the 6th most popular DVD sale at Amazon.com and Serenity is the most popular DVD sale on Amazon.com today. How do you define a hit?
Or maybe we're tired of the last decade of Simpson style jokes set in different places(Family guy, American dad, Simpsons and Futurama) and they should try something new? I'm surprized people haven't noticed that animation can be more than slap-stick with a morale tale attached, or a rip off of Japanese cartoons with the same depth as the 80s action figure whoring shows.
The Simpsons has remained popular for so long because it is funny, and because it is funny on multiple levels. The writers make a specific effort to write jokes that will last, and the majority of the humor does not depend upon knowledge of pop culture. Futurama makes that same effort, and combines it with a very scientific oriented intellectualism. When was the last time you heard jokes during prime time that relied upon the audience understanding the basics of quantum physics or for that matter even knowing what "pi" is? The family guy seem to be variations and/or attempts to discover the "formula" behind the Simpsons, but it is not a formulaic show; and I don't think it is fair to claim that because Futurama is animated, and shares many attributes with the Simpsons that it is unoriginal. Compared to the reality TV show of the week, or the latest sitcom about a family or a bunch of pretty and hip young people in the city, Futurama is a breath of fresh air. I just wish there was more television that was intellectual, rather than dumbed down for the least common denominator or reliant upon pop culture. Shakespeare's work is timeless because it was written to appeal to multiple audiences. He made sure to have his "high" humor witticisms and historical settings and references to appeal to his first run, patronage. He also made sure to include a fair share of physical comedy/action and "common man" type characters to broaden the appeal for presentations to the rest of the people. In 100 years people will still be able to laugh about quantum physics and pi, but they won't know or care who Ashlee Simpson is.
Exactly where is the relation between human-computer interaction and HTML code compliance?
Actually, there is a big relationship between the two. Using standardized markup is a big focus for usability and human-computer interaction experts, because there is no way to be certain how a given human will want to experience information. Using standards allows screen readers, braille boards, vision impaired, and other interfaces to work properly. It also allows alternate input methods, not only for the impaired, but for new technology and specialized interfaces. If a human-computer interaction expert can't code their own information for use by the large and growing physically impaired community they certainly lose credibility with me. And for any of us using a custom input devices, like a stylus, chorded mouse, voice interface, or who rely upon machines to parse and preprocess text standardized formats are very important.
According to here at imdb, the film was budgeted at around $40 million USD and only took in around $30 million USD worldwide.
Their numbers look a little out of date, as the production budget was 39 million and the total gross, worldwide is at 38 million right now. Still, your point is well taken. While this film will likely break even and make a small profit in the next few years of DVD sales, it is by no means a sure thing to find funding for another medium-low budget film like this one.
I actually wonder about this movie. I know the series has a large, cult following. Several friends of mine, however, expressed frustration that the movie was not playing anywhere near them. One friend lives in a typical medium sized town with a six screen theater, that never showed the film. The other lives in a slightly larger town with three theaters and a very large engineering university. They also did not have the film come to any of the theaters. This makes me wonder about the cause and effect. Did the movie perform poorly, and thus was not brought to many theaters, or was it not brought to many theaters, and thus did poorly?
I disagree. In most markets the popularity of a product drives sales, which in turn determines if an item will continue to be available. Up until the publishing of series on DVD became popular, however, this mechanism was completely absent from the television market. Since no one could buy just the shows they wanted, decisions about whether or not to cancel a show were made based upon guesswork and Nielson ratings. In most cases this is still true. Now, TV executives are starting to get feedback via DVD sales indicating that they have been making really crappy decisions, including canceling some of the most popular shows. This is just the invisible hand of the market using greed to give people what they want. If we really want better quality shows, the answer is simple. Move to a model where shows are purchased individually and let the market decide. Personally, I'd much rather that greed drives TV executives to give people what they want, rather than greed driving them to make arbitrary guesses without any feedback.
As an aside, guess how many of the ten most popular TV series of all time were cancelled, or scheduled to be cancelled, and then saved at the last minute by some random event? TV executives tend to cancel anything different or novel, since it seems risky. DVD sales, like those of Futurama, are just a way for them to be told not to cancel something different, since it is in demand.
According to the article, Futurama is getting resurrected because of high syndication ratings and a large number of DVD sales. I love Firefly, but it doesn't have either one of those going for it.
Firefly was (at one time) in the top 10 DVDs on Barnes and Noble and in the top 50 on Amazon, the only two major retail outlets to publish their sales statistics. I'd say that is pretty popular for the series. The movie did alright at the box office, but nothing spectacular. It certainly did well enough so that Whedon can get funding for another if he is so inclined. I doubt we'll see a revival of the series, but it is certainly not out of the question.
I'd hardly say that's the motivation in most cases. I really doubt that girls are fleeing out of high school and getting into whatever program they can find that will net them a husband and then transferring out. Joining the cheerleading squad is hardly the same as getting yourself into a four-five year degree just so you can find a husband.
Perhaps not, but a significant number of people go to a college or university because it is expected of them. A non-consequential number either do not have any real plan for their degree when they start school, or have an idea that does not require a degree. Believe it or not, but a significant portion of the population (especially among those that can afford a higher education) still adhere at least somewhat to the belief in an atomic household, with a stay-at-home parent. For the record, I am not one of them. Nonetheless, in my experience it is possible that this could make up a significant portion of the discrepancy in the percentage of male and female students that graduate with a CS degree. When faced with a more or less arbitrary choice, it is conceivable that a person might choose the one that offers them the best prospects for meeting someone. It is, after all, one of the primary themes and behaviors of our species.
Most of the female students I know in computer science are there to learn. Several of us women in computer science are already married and didn't need to go into CS to meet men. I will go even farther in saying if I was single, I wouldn't date any of my fellow students.
I agree that most women are probably in classes to learn, rather than to meet someone. What I was saying was that there is some percentage for whom that is not true and that percentage may or may not make up some of the discrepancy that explains why more women drop out of CS. I imagine this is true in any field where one gender is under represented. Anecdotally, I know one young lady who went into CS because she wanted to go to a particular university, but they did not offer interior design and she thought one of her brother's friends in CS was cute. I know another person who told me she went into the field because it was interesting but said she probably wouldn't finish because she planned to get married and become a home maker. Try not to take either my anecdotes or this possible explanation as a personal attack. It is just one possible explanation.
Yeah, I went to a large, engineering university. The gender ratio was worse than that for the entire student body, and much, much lower in the hard sciences.
So they are more likely to be dissuaded from pursuing computer science if they are exposed to an unpleasant environment, bad teaching, and negative stereotypes like the image of the male hacker.'
I don't know if the number is statistically significant, but from my own anecdotal experience I know a number of women who went into CS because of the gender difference and because they were more interested in finding a financially stable husband than in learning about computer science. I know several women who became engaged and/or married and then switched degrees or dropped out. I imagine the same is true, in reverse, for certain fields dominated by women. I know at least one guy who joined the cheerleading squad to meet women.
I did not see an exception for security cameras. Does this mean that in five years I'll be able to go into a new bank with some LEDs on my hat and the police will have no record of my visit, since their recording gear will refuse to record? Alternately, pirates can always just buy hi-res security cameras to record video. Heck, what happens if someone brings a portable DVD player into the bank? What happens to the security cameras at Best Buy, in the video department?
This law is in no way designed to go after the big guys. It's all about the small fish and keeping them in check.
This is not designed to stop pirating at all. Small scale pirating does not lose the media companies a significant amount and even a medium sized operation can manage to find old hardware or foreign hardware without these restrictions. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the next media format and hardware has no way to import your current media, thus forcing you to buy yet another copy of the music, book, or song you already own. That is big money and that is diametrically opposed to the interests of these politicians supposed constituents. That is also why this crap is always presented as a piracy issue, rather than what it really is. Please stop believing their lies.
No, there's not a big difference. The only difference is one of chance. If Sun discovers they have patents on technology covered by ODF, it's the same situation. The question becomes, do you want to gamble on whether sun will discover such patents or not.
You don't see a difference between, "Sun might find patents that apply and might not decide to let them be used in a future version the spec (inconveniencing themselves in the process)" and "MS has patents that specifically apply which they are already using to restrict people and which they can use to close the spec at any time?"
The "open" in "open source" and "open standard" means the same thing, it's just whether or not it applies to a standard or source. Being GPL compatible doesn't determine whether something is open or not.
No, but not being GPL compatible is pretty good indication that a format is not open to use. But all of that is semantics. What we are interested in is not having a word, we are interested in the benefits a truly open standard can bring, including competition among vendors, no lock-in, and guaranteed backwards compatibility and legal data access in the future. The Open Document spec guarantees all of these things, while the Open XML spec and accompanying licensing seems designed to prevent them.
If MS complies with government requirements to implement an approved open spec by implementing the Open Document spec what will happen? Well, Word will have to compete on its merits against Open Office and other applications. In ten years I can be certain I'll be able to read documents created in that specification. And if I ever want to I know I can switch applications without much pain.
If MS convinces the world that its Open XML spec is "good enough" what will happen. Word will not have to compete on a level field against Open Office, KOffice, and and most open source word processors, since those programs will not be able to implement the Open XML format legally. MS will have the option of legally closing the spec in the future and banning distribution of existing implementations, thus offering me no guarantee that I will be able to open a document in the future. I might be able to switch to a different application, but I have no guarantees of that.
Call it what you like, but it has none of the important benefits that have motivated various governments and companies to demand an open specification.
The GPL explictly defines the conditions upon which patented work is compatible with the GPL.
I'll say this again, slowly. The GPL is a license to redistribute a copyrighted work. It applies only to copyrighted works. Neither Open Document or Open XML is copyrighted. The GPL limits whether or not someone may redistribute GPL code after adding more code that runs afoul of a patent. It does not limit any new works, only modifications of the old works. Hence if a format can only be implemented by using a patent that is not licensed, the GPL cannot stop you from writing a new application using any license you want, including the GPL, to implement that format.
Open office is distributed under the LGPL, and thus Sun has agreed to whatever terms are necessary to redistribute their and other people's work under it, including any patent issues. The document linked to earlier was the patent agreement Sun signed to satisfy OASIS and get the format approved as a standard. Sun is bound by both.
Look lawyers from numerous companies have looked at the legal issues for the Open Document format, and then it was implemented by a half a dozen different companies and groups. Many of those same lawyers have looked at the Open XML licensing and said, "we can't implement this legally." Are you telling me they are all wrong and you know better?
Just admit it, The MS license is not "open enough" to bring the main benefits people want. MS is just trying to confuse others with their naming, that may not understand what the benefits trying to be achieved are.
find it interesting that you are so meticulous about interpreting Microsoft's license, yet you seem to ignore entirely Sun's license and patent covenent which contains very similar "loopholes". For instance, Sun's patent covenent promises not to sue anyone *SO LONG A SUN IS PARTICIPATING* in that version of OpenDocument.
First, MS has applied for and been granted patents on the format itself in multiple jurisdictions. Sun has not patented the Open Office format. The license you are referring to discusses technologies that may be utilized by the format, not the format itself. Second, Sun has promised not to sue anyone for using any of their patents that might cover technology in the Open Office spec, because that is what OASIS requires. It does not imply that any such technologies exist. Third, regarding the participation clause, no company in their right mind would cede all their patent rights for all technology arbitrarily. The participation clause allows Sun to decline the option to participate in a new version of the standard, thus preventing someone from arbitrarily inserting random patented technology in a new version of the spec, and thus gaining access to any of Suns patents, license free.
There is a big difference between an agreement that says if any patents conflict with a format they won't be enforced and a patented format, licensed with restrictions. There is a huge difference between the ability to not release a new version of a format from patent protection and the ability to arbitrarily rescind a license to a format. If Sun decided not to participate in a future version of Open Office any company that has implemented old versions are still free to do so and new programs are free to implement them for backwards compatibility. If MS releases a new version of the "Open XML" spec no one is free to keep distributing old word processors or implement new word processors that can use that format for backwards compatibility, save at MS's whim. If you don't see the practical difference then you're either dense or being paid not to see it.
So, for example, if Sun decided they didn't like the direction of OpenDocument 1.1, they could stop participating and then sue anyone for "suddenly discovered" patents.
Sun can only sue if they have patents covered by a new version of the spec that they are not implementing (none are known) and if other companies then go ahead and implement that spec. The reason for this restriction on their patent protection license was already explained above.
Additionally, the "openness" of something has nothing to do with whether or not it's GPL compatible. There are many open source (and even Free, according the Free Software Foundation) licenses that are not GPL compatible. The Mozilla Public License, for instance.
You're confusing "open" and "open source." Open source means you can view the code. Open means the format is unencumbered and freely implementable by all. An open standard is one that can be implemented by anyone. A closed standard is one that must be licensed and is subject to restrictions. The Open Document standard is open. No license is needed to implement it, and the various companies that submitted the standard have pledged that if any of their patents cover items within it, they won't enforce them (to prevent submarine patenting). MS, on the other hand, admits to having patented the "Open XML" spec, and further has placed restriction on how that spec can be used (singling out certain software licenses for specific exclusion).
I'm also skeptical that Sun's license is GPL compatible either, since they impose the additional requirement of granting Sun reciprocal patent rights (explictly Sun, not necessarily others), which violates the "no additional restrictions" clause of the GPL.
A document format cannot be (by definition) GPL compatible. The GPL covers source code and redistribution of binaries. That is copyright law, not patent law. Nothing prevents GPL programs from implemen
Multiple, competing open standards are fine, and being open it is usually not too difficult to translate between them. Unfortunately MS's "Open XML" standard is not open, so they are not really giving us the choice they are claiming. Open XML is format that is patented and that is licensed with a variety of important restrictions. For example, only the current version is covered by the license, it expires immediately should a new version come out. According to the letter of the license this means the benefits of backwards compatibility and even the ability to distribute a program from one day to the next are subject to MS's whim. Should MS release a new version that is intentionally broken, they could legally restrict competitors from continuing to sell or even give away a word processor.
Redistribution is completely forbidden by the licensing, leading many to believe that it was specifically designed to exclude GNU licensed applications, like Open Office, their primary competitor. How can anyone call "Open XML" and open format when the license under which that format is offered means it can't be implemented by OpenOffice?
All of this is MS marketing FUD. Closed is open. Bad is good. Ha ha we made it really hard for you to explain shit to your managers by naming our product the opposite of what it is. This is like GM calling the next iteration of their traditional cargo van "Hybrid Luxury Mobile" despite it not having a hybrid engine or any luxury features. Don't fall for their crap.
The nice thing about britannica is that though it is imperfect, I have seen few cases of pervasive campaigns of misinformation.
While I agree with much of your sentiment, I'm not sure I can agree with the above statement. Have you read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia has so many more eyes on it, and from such a different audience than the encyclopedia Britiannica, I'm not sure that anecdotal evidence is really valid. For all I know, the Encyclopedia Britannica regularly engages in campaigns of misinformation, but due to their audience for that section, it has not been brought to my attention. Of course all of this just stresses the need to have multiple references and to validate the sources of information. As Wikipedia becomes more mainstream it will certainly require more moderation and versioning.
Encyclopedias are meant to be concise and to the point. A starting point for research, not a be-all and end-all. And I don't agree with normalizing errors to the length of the article, it should be the number of errors per article. Just because you wrote more stuff it doesn't give you the leeway to screw up more...
I don't know about you, but for me, more content on a subject is better. Especially if that content is written properly, with the most important/general information first and more detailed information following. If you want a meaningful metric it should be errors/information imparted.
For example. According to the metric used in the test referenced the phrases "Dogs are canines. These mammals have three legs." would score as 1 error for 8 words. While "Dogs are three legged mammals" would score one error for five words. We can all see that is non really a proper measure. Your proposed method, however, would rate both articles as one error for one article, which is also improper since the second article contains more information that the first. A more meaningful (but harder to generate) metric would be errors per pertinent fact. That would rate the above articles as 1 error for 2 facts and 1 error for 3 facts, respectively. More words are not necessarily beneficial, but I'd rather reward more content (especially for a medium like an online encyclopedia) than punish it. One of the things I appreciate about Wikipedia is that the content on certain topics is exhaustive, providing a much more meaningful and complete understanding of a topic than a traditional encyclopedia.
free-games usually lack decent artwork or decent menus or whatnot... they even lack decent stories.
There are two ways to solve this. One is to develop GUI dev environments that make it easy for non-programmers, like writers and artists to create good, playable games. The second is to recruit artists and writers for open source projects. This means going to forums for graphics and writing and asking for volunteers and then treating those people as first class citizens. Posting on a programming forum is not enough.
One of the most talented graphic artists I know decided one day to put together some textures and models and donate them to an open source project he had heard about. He read some of the forums for a while and put together some material, which he then posted. He was flamed by no less than five people for posting textures in the wrong file format, none of whom bothered to mention or answer queries about what the desired format was and none of that information was available anywhere in the sparse documentation for the project. Aside from the flames, he was given no responses of any kind to his posting. After a few days of silence, he gave up and that project lost a valuable resource that might have solved one of the biggest hurdles for open source games.
Artists and writers will have to be recruited and treated better than that if there is to be any hope for open source games. You can have a great game with a simple engine and rudimentary graphics, but even the best graphics and the most advanced engine is no fun without a good story, or gameplay.
MTV is not a record label, they don't have any music artists signed to them. They'll have to secure a licensing agreement for each and every song to get music to this service. That means not only does MTV/M$ get a cut, the labels get a cut. And from their history of whining about iTunes, they'll demand a hefty cut. It's no surprise that the prices haven't been announced yet, I doubt they'll be able to compete with iTunes with so many hands in the pie.
That depends a lot upon MS. MS may, for example, take only a token cut, while at the same time absorbing all the distribution costs like bandwidth, servers, employees, etc. Why would MS do that? They might do that because they can just roll the costs into the price of Windows (monopoly power) and because it will make them more money in the future. They want to kill the iTunes store and kill the .mp4 format. Both lend money and power to an organization that threatens their core monopoly. Also, with their own, proprietary, format and DRM established as the only/priomary format they can easily make it hard for users to migrate away and can take a licensing cut (of pretty much whatever amount they want) from each music sale from any company. CDs will include windows media files as well so they get a cut of the hard copy sales. And the record industry is trapped paying because they can't afford to try to get customers to move to something else that for some reason won't work on Windows and will require customers to re-purchase all their old music.
MS+MTV won't be profitable compared to iTunes, but that does not mean they can't undersell them.
Depite all the likely flames about big global beasties taking over the world, what's really so bad about this. Consider what happens if Sony ever succeeds in this area and end up with control of the Artist right through to the device, then there just isn't any consumer choice, Artists are forced to sign up with Sony and consumers are forced to sign up with Sony devices.
So your argument is that it is likely that Sony will leverage their non-monopoly music business (part of a cartel) and their non-monopoly hardware business to forma a monopoly on hardware and music. And you think this is more likely than the possibility that MS, who has a monopoly, will be able to leverage that monopoly to gain a music distribution monopoly. Here's a clue. If Sony tries to take over the music distribution business, they have to fight not only Apple but all their RIAA partners. If MS wants to take over the music business they just have to leverage their existing monopoly. Can you say, "free three year subscription with each copy of Windows?" I knew you could. Sony is a threat to the free market as part of a cartel and as a huge player, but they are unlikely to be able to simultaneously suppress all the other hardware and music distribution companies. Aside from Apple's format, MS has already taken over the legal music distribution format. That's right, if not for Apples strategic move, all music would be distributed in a format completely controlled by MS already. How far is it from there to discriminatory licensing of that format compared to MS's own use in their own service? MS is the much larger threat right now.
The quality is much less than a regular CD. 128kbs my ass
I think I covered that when I said, "The trade off with iTunes is the quality is slightly less than a regular CD..." Of course the occasional song has a higher bitrate. For the car, I can't tell any difference at all due to all the road/wind noise. At home I can tell the difference. It is still better than MP3s at the same rate, but noticeably worse than CDs, for most songs. At one of my noisy parties, no one can tell, and when the choice is a iTunes store purchase, or getting nothing while I wait for it to show up on the shelves at the used CD shops, or online, well I'm definitely going with something.
But I'd still rather have a CD than download directly from iTunes. Then I can move my material from device to device as the media changes. It's mp3 this year but who knows what audio format is coming around next year? Are you going to be able to play your iTunes downloads 10 years from now?
Have you ever bought anything from the iTunes store? I've bought a few songs I could not find easily elsewhere; perhaps two albums worth. Every time it reminds you to back up your new music. What is the easiest way to do that with iTunes? You burn a CD. And that is just what I did. So yeah, I think my iTunes music will be just as playable in the future as CDs are.
The trade off with iTunes is the quality is slightly less than a regular CD, although the price is usually slightly better, the granularity is better, and the availability and instant download is much easier than hunting through stores or waiting for a CD to ship. Future compatibility is a non-issue. Used CDs and non-DRM downloads are usually a better deal though.
I used to live in a small town with a large engineering university. It was used as a test market by many of the larger companies in the US because they could get a good handle on the male 18-27 demographic (Think 3 or more males for every female in town). For some reason none of the foods I liked ever made it into production. I must have unusual tastes. I even liked "Dr. Slice" a strange reddish soda that may or may not have been a mix of Dr. Pepper and ruby red slice. It mixed great with rum.
No, it doesn't. I tried a sip of one the other day. Here's a tip for all those soda recipe makers out there. If you don't want it to taste diet, don't put aspartame in it. Sucralose/Splenda is just fine. Putting in less sugar/corn syrup is fine. Hell I'd be happy if they took the old recipe, and replaced the sugar with 75% as much sucralose. Just don't don't don't put that nasty aspartame crap in it. I mean what is the point of using multiple sugar substitutes... so you can get the aftertaste of all of them? Man that stuff is nasty.
Videos, commentary, unreleased songs can easily be done with enhanced CD.
It's not about what can be done with the existing format, its about what is not there now, but can be added to a new format to entice people to move to that format. You can add deleted scenes and extra commentary to the end of a VCR (and a small portion of them had that) but it was used to convince people to buy a DVD version of a movie they already owned. If nothing else there is always the fact that CDs become scratched and die and these companies have particular content locked down, so they can just refuse to release anything in the old format, once they get a good number of people to switch. People have said the current format was all they would ever need for every format; records, reel-to-reel, 8-track, and cassette before getting to CDs. They were wrong then and you're wrong now.