Consoles have to be one of the stupidest ideas ever.
On one side you have a single purpose device that costs $400, only allows you to play games designed for a specific platform, and is (except by a small minority of tinkerers) completely unupgradeable.
However, on my PC, I can configure almost every component of the hardware, software, and the OS. I can emulate some consoles, and can even run emulations of old arcade machines. In addition, PC games are generally cheaper, and I can, of course, use the PC for ten-million other tasks. I also have better support for peripherals (gaming related and general). There are also a wide variety of free games I can play on my PC, including open-source, freeware, and free trials.
In addition, graphics on most entry-level computers is better than some consoles, and I play them on a high-resolution monitor and not a crappy resolution TV screen.
PC gaming will be around as long as there are PCs, while consoles have an ever shrinking benefit, especially when you factor in the widespread penetration of PCs in game-playing households.
Kirk is the man, but let's face it, his storyline has pretty much been covered.
Instead, bring back evil Kirk! Hell, bring back evil Spock too! Have all the johnny-come-latelys, i.e. Picard, Janeway, and all the rest try to defend the Federation against those two.
The Federation would then, of course, be destroyed. The franchise closes for a decade or so, and then they release three movies, with the first called "A New Hope." The new trilogy would follow the rebuilding of the Federation by let's say . . . Data.
Steve Ballmer's head explodes when presented with a logic error (MS = quality), thus proving he's an evil cyborg from the future.
A black hole is developed by hapless scientists, escapes its containment barrier and preceeds to make Swiss Cheese out of the Earth.
Future ex-President George W. Bush is appointed by President Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and leads the world to the start of a new era of peace, understanding, and prosperity.
Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears earn a joint Nobel Prize for Physics, when they discover that stupidity is actually caused by a rare quantum particle that is capable of spreading like a virus. News reports note that, like the Curie's, these two acted as their own experimental guinea pigs and may have accidently caused everyone on the planet to lose 10% of their IQ.
Oh yeah, and in the words of Wayne: Monkeys might fly out of my butt!
I always love how Microsoft's most wishful thinking is covered as "news."
Being a dyed-in-the-wool-pinko-commie-liberal, I've always been skeptical of claims that "the free market" can solve any particular problem. Solutions to problems have a nasty habit of changing paradigms, which the free market, by its very nature, is resistant to.
According to at least one source spam currently makes up 71% of current e-mail traffic and viruses account for another 1%. That's almost three out of every four e-mails. And how did it get this way? Because the free market let it.
The truth is that there is no financial incentive for the free market to address the problem, and in a way, it prospers by it. And not just the spammers, but every large ISP that gets paid for bandwidth by a smaller ISP benefits. An entire industry has grown up around "preventing" spam and viruses. Hell, the company behind the source I just referenced makes their money because of it . . . And that's why the problem continues to get worse not better.
However, show me a technical solution, with the backing of some kind of governmental enforcement mechanism (either one without the other doesn't work)and then you're actually talking about something that has a possibility (but note not a likelihood) of working.
It would make far more sense for Microsoft to invest in Red Hat than buy it outright. Look at their investment in Apple if you'd like a precedent. The idea has several advantages:
Good hedge fund type investment. When MS succeeds, they get money. When Red Hat succeeds, they get money.
Opens the door for an expanded market. Just like MS provided versions of IE and MS Office for the Mac, they could provide server products to run on Red Hat servers that would allow for better interoperability
Co-opt the competition. Always a good strategy.
Street cred. "Look we support Linux in our own special way."
Avoid all the antitrust issues that an outright buy of Red hat would entail
I'm not saying this is likely, but it would make a lot more sense and with as much cash as MS has, they can certainly afford either option. However, investing in an established rival is behavior Microsoft has exhibited before, and they do seem very much to not learn any new tricks.
This has to be the stupidest comment I've ever seen on/.
The whole idea of the standards is to allow the user to view the page in whatever manner is most convienent for them. The content (XHTML) is separated from how it is presented (CSS) just for the sole purpose of enabling the user to take control over how the page is presented.
Whether you choose to use your own CSS file, a screen reader, or just choose to disable images, a user should be able to get all the same content. And as the screen reader mention implies, we're not just talking XHTML and CSS, but accessibility standards as well.
Bottom line is that if you want your website to look the same way on every machine, post the whole damn thing as PDFs or JPEGs. It will look the way you want, but that obviously doesn't make it right.
I run a website that gets 30 million hits a month, and since May 2004, Microsoft IE use has declined every single month since then. Where are they all going? Well, Firefox, which in May 2004 accounted for something like 2% is now nearly up to 18%. All versions of Netscape combined are now at 2%, Mozilla Suite is at 4%, and Safari and Opera are both at about 1%.
Downloads are at best an imperfect metric of popularity. Actual usage however is an excellent metric, and Firefox's growth has continued (at least in my experience) to accelerate.
The cold hard fact is that Firefox will never "beat" IE. But it doesn't have to, and it would actually be a bad thing if it did. With anything above a 20% share of the market, that should be enough pressure to get sites to quit using all that god damned Active X and IE-only content, and actually create sites that are navigable by more than one browser.
This is especially true when looking at the relatively strong rates of adoption for other browsers like Safari. The end goal is not to replace one nearly ubiquitous browser with another one. The goal should be to create an environment where EVERY USER can use the BROWSER OF THEIR CHOICE, without negatively impacting their ability to use web sites. In any complex system, whether its an ecosystem or computing, homogenous environments are not "healthy." Natural variation on the other hand is always successful.
Okay, let me get this straight. Someone wasted their time trying to investigate the "feasibility" of the technology in Star Wars?
Is this the same fictional universe where sound travels through space, those w/ high levels of "midi-chlorians" (miniature life forms which purportedly inhabit living cells) can control matter and the weak-minded, and girls go around in metal bikinis?
It always amazes me how movies like 2001, which actually attempted to adhere to technology that could really be developed, and Star Wars, which is as much fantasy as science-fiction, are grouped together in the public's mind.
And when is Forbes going to stop focusing on crap like this, and maybe cover why the government can't get 25-year old technology like the Space Shuttle working correctly? Light-sabers? Hyperdrives? Bah, we can't even get people to the Moon anymore!
Take a look at the UN sponsored (and ITU run) initiative called the "World Summit on the Information Society [WSIS]. This is the group that is looking to replace ICANN.
They have a working group called the "Working Group on Internet Governance" [WGIG] that is proposing IP address allocation by country. The stated reason is that it would be more "fair" but in truth, this would put control over the access to information in the hands of those we should distrust the most.
What happens when you're a dissident in China (or gasp! the U.S) and can't even get an IP address? You won't even be able to "roll your own" as it were because it won't be routed.
Yes, blocking access to websites and online content is bad, but giving governments direct control over IP addressing would be like them owning printing presses 230+ years ago. Not only would you not be able to read content, you wouldn't even be able to publish content without being on your government's good side.
Don't attack it based on how religious organizations use the theory but on it's merits
I love how you assume it has merits! An obsolutely unprovable belief being passed off as scientific theory is, by its very nature, unsuitable to discuss in the same breath as a scientific theory that has undergone rigourous testing and has been proven again and again with all the evidence we can find.
Also, evolution isn't based on science, it IS science. And it doesn't matter that you say "my point is, Integgegant Design != God," because whether its God, aliens, or a super-intelligent shade of blue, it's unprovable, and thus not science but belief. You are of course free to believe whatever you want. In fact, if you give me your name and address, I'll send you some information on how you can believe all sorts of things for a nominal fee.
Ah, a sufferer of the "every issue has two sides and each deserves to be heard" sickness. In a past life, you were probably one of the people saying "Well, the Earth could be flat. Let's not presume we know either way." Or perhaps "It is possible that she's a witch, so let us burn her at the stake just to be sure."
Your analogy of the fly and the car is wonderfully inept. To make it apply, you'd have to have a fly that could reason, conduct experiments, and have higher order thought. In which case, yes, it could know how a car runs.
Humans don't know everything, but we have developed theories that explain pretty much everything about the physics of day to day life, and have a good handle on such esoterica as the age of the universe, the composition and behavior of subatomic particles, and the speed of light.
There is nothing to "teach" about intelligent design, unless you think belief and faith can (or should) be taught.
Let me guess, you were home-schooled, weren't you?
The thing I find most fascinating about the fight against evolution, including the push of "intelligent design," is why they stop at evolution. I mean, all science is theory, replaceable when a better theory comes along. So where are those who wish to teach alchemy along side chemistry? Astrology along side astronomy? Psychic surgery and witch-doctoring along side medicine?
The most troublesome part of this is the basic misunderstanding of science that is evidenced in the the debate on this issue. To be "science," a postulate must be able to be proved or disproved. There is nothing about "intelligent design" that can be tested, thus relegating it to where it belongs: faith."
Every piece of evidence we have shows us that we are the mostly hairless, slightly intelligent descendants of lower primates. And that everything currently alive on the planet is also the descendant of other species. There is not one piece of evidence ANYWHERE that says there is a Creator, that the world is only six thousand and something year old, or that there is a "plan" at work in the universe.
If you want to have faith that any of this is true, be my guest. But don't try to pass your faith off as science, as it diminishes both.
He never says that he doesn't remember them, he says something to the effect of "I don't remember ever owning any droids." And that is technically true, as he never owned them (or any others as far as the films show).
I was initially bothered by this as well, but I've decided it was just Ben being coy about what was happening. After all, last he had heard (being on the furthest point from the bright center of the universe) the Jedi Knights were being hunted down and killed. Couldn't be possible that he might have some reservations about whether or not Luke was being used (without him knowing it) to track him down?
As for the home-testing kit, I suspect those were made under the auspices of the Jedi Council, and with the destruction of the Jedi, they weren't available anymore.
I've often thought the same thing. In fact in many of the "Making of Star Wars" documentaries it was pointed out how unusual it was for so much attention to detail be paid to models and special effects and then have them fly across the screen in an eye-blink. He wanted it to look cool, but not get wrapped up in pointing out how cool it looked. This definitely changed with the prequels.
Also, I think it was a function of money and timing. There was never enough of either (until ROTJ) to really give Lucas full reign on "implementing his vision" and for the most part that actually worked in favor of the films being tight, fast-paced and exciting. Just look at what he's done with the re-releases and you'll see why sometimes being creative under tremendous pressure gets better results.
most of the hate directed at the previous two, Jar-Jar comments aside, was a media invention
Do you live in a cave? Perhaps you've been in a coma? Have you not talked to any old-time Star Wars fans since the first two prequels came out?
The first prequel was compared more than once to C-Span in space. It was boring, long-winded, and didn't move the narrative along at all. And it had the worst fictional character ever to be seen on film, aka Jar-Jar.
The second was a little better, and indeed had some cool sequences, but on the whole was a rather weak attempt.
Any true Star Wars fan-boy thinks ESB was the best Star Wars film, and we've all been waiting for George to get done barfing out Ewoks and get on with what we all knew was possible.
That said, when it comes to Kevin Smith and Star Wars, if he says it's fucking awesome, then I'm willing to at least suspend judgement until I see the film. He's not quite like Peter Jackson is to LOTR, but he's close, and he knows if he goes out on a limb in praise of the movie and it sucks, no one is ever going to believe him again. Not to mention that if he pisses off enough of his fan base (which have a large number of Star Wars fans), his upcoming sequel to Clerks will be a complete bomb.
I tested and wrote for a trade publication that did hardware and software reviews for three years. During that time, I learned the following:
Companies will do anything they can to 1) get products reviewed and 2) get products reviewed favorably
It is usually not worth it for companies to ask for most products back, so the publication/reviewers usually end up keeping them. I'm not just talking USB keys either, think brand new notebooks, PCs, servers, and monitors
While there was much talk about the separation between sales and editorial, whenever it came time to hand out awards, it was always amazing to see staff recommendations changed to the benefit of major advertisers
Almost every review ever written is entirely made up of sections almost straight from a press release or the back of the box. I've spotted many where they didn't even bother rewording them.
Freelance reviewers (which I sadly wasn't) can make excellent money. One that worked for my publication pulled down $250,000 (US) in a single year for a number of half-ass reviews and buyer's guides.
Until there is a publication that, like Consumer Reports, does not accept advertising AND has the technological expertise and resources to truly test equipment, never believe a single review you read in a print or online publication.
. . . sound of the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
One has to wonder what would have happened if the British had such draconian measures in place say around the 1770s. Would they have locked up Ben Franklin for printing Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," and "The Rights of Man?"
Any regime (which is what the current administration has turned into) that cannot allow free speech should not be allowed to stand. Or at least I believe that's what Patrick Henry might say in this situation.
. . . they will chew you up and spit you out like a piece of used tabacco[sic].
The same can be said of any competitive field, especially those centered around "harnessing" (maybe "harvesting" is more correct?) creativity.
Ask any assistant professor at a top university, and they would say all the same things. So would any professional comedian, actor, singer, musician, writer, or artist. Hell, ask most politicians and the answer wouldn't be any different.
I'm not saying that makes it right, but it does seem to be par for the course when it comes to competitive human endeavor. I find all the Slashdot stories about how horrible it is to work in the gaming industry very interesting. Most computer nerds seem to shy away from conflict and uncomfortable situations, and thus all these posts that say essentially "You'd never see me working for a company like that."
But the truth is that those creative types (even geeky ones) who actually try to make a living at it never have had it easy. Galileo? Excommunicated. Copernicus and Tycho Brahe? Had to make their real money as astrolgers. Van Gogh? Crazy and poor. And most everyone else didn't really "make it" until after they were dead.
It doesn't come down to what you have to overcome to do what you love, it comes down to the fact you love it so you'll try and overcome whatever tries to stop you.
Just lock up the two of them and tell them it is a fight to the death to decide whose "creative vision" will be used to create the next Star Trek series.
Can't wait to see Shatner with a "lirpa" in his hands again!
Go to Tools>Templates and Add-ins
Under Templates, uncheck PDFMaker.dot. It will not load it anymore.
Or you could simply leave, and choose to not view that Toolbar.
Not sure what the big freaking deal is.
For handhelds at least, I strip out all the positioning. There simply isn't enough of a canvas on a mobile device to worry about positioning. When I created the handheld CSS for my website at work, I simply stripped out all the positing and most of the background images. Actually, very similar approach to the print version of the css I created to allow the website content to remain intact, and remove all the website navigation crap you don't want to print out anyway.
If you're doing semantic markup, you end up with a nicely formatted page that is easy to read on any size screen.
As far as strict XHTML, working with different broswers basically comes down to IE 6, Firefox, and Konqueror-based browsers, It's really not that hard to come up a design that works in all three, and even have it look cool too.
Slashdot Mirror
Consoles have to be one of the stupidest ideas ever.
On one side you have a single purpose device that costs $400, only allows you to play games designed for a specific platform, and is (except by a small minority of tinkerers) completely unupgradeable.
However, on my PC, I can configure almost every component of the hardware, software, and the OS. I can emulate some consoles, and can even run emulations of old arcade machines. In addition, PC games are generally cheaper, and I can, of course, use the PC for ten-million other tasks. I also have better support for peripherals (gaming related and general). There are also a wide variety of free games I can play on my PC, including open-source, freeware, and free trials.
In addition, graphics on most entry-level computers is better than some consoles, and I play them on a high-resolution monitor and not a crappy resolution TV screen.
PC gaming will be around as long as there are PCs, while consoles have an ever shrinking benefit, especially when you factor in the widespread penetration of PCs in game-playing households.
Kirk is the man, but let's face it, his storyline has pretty much been covered.
Instead, bring back evil Kirk! Hell, bring back evil Spock too! Have all the johnny-come-latelys, i.e. Picard, Janeway, and all the rest try to defend the Federation against those two.
The Federation would then, of course, be destroyed. The franchise closes for a decade or so, and then they release three movies, with the first called "A New Hope." The new trilogy would follow the rebuilding of the Federation by let's say . . . Data.
Steve Ballmer's head explodes when presented with a logic error (MS = quality), thus proving he's an evil cyborg from the future. A black hole is developed by hapless scientists, escapes its containment barrier and preceeds to make Swiss Cheese out of the Earth. Future ex-President George W. Bush is appointed by President Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and leads the world to the start of a new era of peace, understanding, and prosperity. Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears earn a joint Nobel Prize for Physics, when they discover that stupidity is actually caused by a rare quantum particle that is capable of spreading like a virus. News reports note that, like the Curie's, these two acted as their own experimental guinea pigs and may have accidently caused everyone on the planet to lose 10% of their IQ. Oh yeah, and in the words of Wayne: Monkeys might fly out of my butt! I always love how Microsoft's most wishful thinking is covered as "news."
Being a dyed-in-the-wool-pinko-commie-liberal, I've always been skeptical of claims that "the free market" can solve any particular problem. Solutions to problems have a nasty habit of changing paradigms, which the free market, by its very nature, is resistant to.
According to at least one source spam currently makes up 71% of current e-mail traffic and viruses account for another 1%. That's almost three out of every four e-mails. And how did it get this way? Because the free market let it.
The truth is that there is no financial incentive for the free market to address the problem, and in a way, it prospers by it. And not just the spammers, but every large ISP that gets paid for bandwidth by a smaller ISP benefits. An entire industry has grown up around "preventing" spam and viruses. Hell, the company behind the source I just referenced makes their money because of it . . . And that's why the problem continues to get worse not better.
However, show me a technical solution, with the backing of some kind of governmental enforcement mechanism (either one without the other doesn't work)and then you're actually talking about something that has a possibility (but note not a likelihood) of working.
It would make far more sense for Microsoft to invest in Red Hat than buy it outright. Look at their investment in Apple if you'd like a precedent. The idea has several advantages:
I'm not saying this is likely, but it would make a lot more sense and with as much cash as MS has, they can certainly afford either option. However, investing in an established rival is behavior Microsoft has exhibited before, and they do seem very much to not learn any new tricks.
This has to be the stupidest comment I've ever seen on /.
The whole idea of the standards is to allow the user to view the page in whatever manner is most convienent for them. The content (XHTML) is separated from how it is presented (CSS) just for the sole purpose of enabling the user to take control over how the page is presented.
Whether you choose to use your own CSS file, a screen reader, or just choose to disable images, a user should be able to get all the same content. And as the screen reader mention implies, we're not just talking XHTML and CSS, but accessibility standards as well.
Bottom line is that if you want your website to look the same way on every machine, post the whole damn thing as PDFs or JPEGs. It will look the way you want, but that obviously doesn't make it right.
Always wondered how the machines used people as power in the Matrix. This explains everything!
I run a website that gets 30 million hits a month, and since May 2004, Microsoft IE use has declined every single month since then. Where are they all going? Well, Firefox, which in May 2004 accounted for something like 2% is now nearly up to 18%. All versions of Netscape combined are now at 2%, Mozilla Suite is at 4%, and Safari and Opera are both at about 1%.
Downloads are at best an imperfect metric of popularity. Actual usage however is an excellent metric, and Firefox's growth has continued (at least in my experience) to accelerate.
The cold hard fact is that Firefox will never "beat" IE. But it doesn't have to, and it would actually be a bad thing if it did. With anything above a 20% share of the market, that should be enough pressure to get sites to quit using all that god damned Active X and IE-only content, and actually create sites that are navigable by more than one browser.
This is especially true when looking at the relatively strong rates of adoption for other browsers like Safari. The end goal is not to replace one nearly ubiquitous browser with another one. The goal should be to create an environment where EVERY USER can use the BROWSER OF THEIR CHOICE, without negatively impacting their ability to use web sites. In any complex system, whether its an ecosystem or computing, homogenous environments are not "healthy." Natural variation on the other hand is always successful.
Okay, let me get this straight. Someone wasted their time trying to investigate the "feasibility" of the technology in Star Wars?
Is this the same fictional universe where sound travels through space, those w/ high levels of "midi-chlorians" (miniature life forms which purportedly inhabit living cells) can control matter and the weak-minded, and girls go around in metal bikinis?
It always amazes me how movies like 2001, which actually attempted to adhere to technology that could really be developed, and Star Wars, which is as much fantasy as science-fiction, are grouped together in the public's mind.
And when is Forbes going to stop focusing on crap like this, and maybe cover why the government can't get 25-year old technology like the Space Shuttle working correctly? Light-sabers? Hyperdrives? Bah, we can't even get people to the Moon anymore!
Take a look at the UN sponsored (and ITU run) initiative called the "World Summit on the Information Society [WSIS]. This is the group that is looking to replace ICANN.
They have a working group called the "Working Group on Internet Governance" [WGIG] that is proposing IP address allocation by country. The stated reason is that it would be more "fair" but in truth, this would put control over the access to information in the hands of those we should distrust the most.
What happens when you're a dissident in China (or gasp! the U.S) and can't even get an IP address? You won't even be able to "roll your own" as it were because it won't be routed.
Yes, blocking access to websites and online content is bad, but giving governments direct control over IP addressing would be like them owning printing presses 230+ years ago. Not only would you not be able to read content, you wouldn't even be able to publish content without being on your government's good side.
I love how you assume it has merits! An obsolutely unprovable belief being passed off as scientific theory is, by its very nature, unsuitable to discuss in the same breath as a scientific theory that has undergone rigourous testing and has been proven again and again with all the evidence we can find.
Also, evolution isn't based on science, it IS science. And it doesn't matter that you say "my point is, Integgegant Design != God," because whether its God, aliens, or a super-intelligent shade of blue, it's unprovable, and thus not science but belief. You are of course free to believe whatever you want. In fact, if you give me your name and address, I'll send you some information on how you can believe all sorts of things for a nominal fee.
Ah, a sufferer of the "every issue has two sides and each deserves to be heard" sickness. In a past life, you were probably one of the people saying "Well, the Earth could be flat. Let's not presume we know either way." Or perhaps "It is possible that she's a witch, so let us burn her at the stake just to be sure."
Your analogy of the fly and the car is wonderfully inept. To make it apply, you'd have to have a fly that could reason, conduct experiments, and have higher order thought. In which case, yes, it could know how a car runs.
Humans don't know everything, but we have developed theories that explain pretty much everything about the physics of day to day life, and have a good handle on such esoterica as the age of the universe, the composition and behavior of subatomic particles, and the speed of light.
There is nothing to "teach" about intelligent design, unless you think belief and faith can (or should) be taught.
Let me guess, you were home-schooled, weren't you?
The thing I find most fascinating about the fight against evolution, including the push of "intelligent design," is why they stop at evolution. I mean, all science is theory, replaceable when a better theory comes along. So where are those who wish to teach alchemy along side chemistry? Astrology along side astronomy? Psychic surgery and witch-doctoring along side medicine?
The most troublesome part of this is the basic misunderstanding of science that is evidenced in the the debate on this issue. To be "science," a postulate must be able to be proved or disproved. There is nothing about "intelligent design" that can be tested, thus relegating it to where it belongs: faith."
Every piece of evidence we have shows us that we are the mostly hairless, slightly intelligent descendants of lower primates. And that everything currently alive on the planet is also the descendant of other species. There is not one piece of evidence ANYWHERE that says there is a Creator, that the world is only six thousand and something year old, or that there is a "plan" at work in the universe.
If you want to have faith that any of this is true, be my guest. But don't try to pass your faith off as science, as it diminishes both.
Yes, but we all know what he thought of those who wore digital watches.
They just need a thumper to call the worm and hitch a ride out of there, don't they? Oh wait . . . "in a Dune" not "on Dune." Never mind.
He never says that he doesn't remember them, he says something to the effect of "I don't remember ever owning any droids." And that is technically true, as he never owned them (or any others as far as the films show).
I was initially bothered by this as well, but I've decided it was just Ben being coy about what was happening. After all, last he had heard (being on the furthest point from the bright center of the universe) the Jedi Knights were being hunted down and killed. Couldn't be possible that he might have some reservations about whether or not Luke was being used (without him knowing it) to track him down?
As for the home-testing kit, I suspect those were made under the auspices of the Jedi Council, and with the destruction of the Jedi, they weren't available anymore.
Whew . . . that's enough geek for today!
I've often thought the same thing. In fact in many of the "Making of Star Wars" documentaries it was pointed out how unusual it was for so much attention to detail be paid to models and special effects and then have them fly across the screen in an eye-blink. He wanted it to look cool, but not get wrapped up in pointing out how cool it looked. This definitely changed with the prequels.
Also, I think it was a function of money and timing. There was never enough of either (until ROTJ) to really give Lucas full reign on "implementing his vision" and for the most part that actually worked in favor of the films being tight, fast-paced and exciting. Just look at what he's done with the re-releases and you'll see why sometimes being creative under tremendous pressure gets better results.
Do you live in a cave? Perhaps you've been in a coma? Have you not talked to any old-time Star Wars fans since the first two prequels came out?
The first prequel was compared more than once to C-Span in space. It was boring, long-winded, and didn't move the narrative along at all. And it had the worst fictional character ever to be seen on film, aka Jar-Jar.
The second was a little better, and indeed had some cool sequences, but on the whole was a rather weak attempt.
Any true Star Wars fan-boy thinks ESB was the best Star Wars film, and we've all been waiting for George to get done barfing out Ewoks and get on with what we all knew was possible.
That said, when it comes to Kevin Smith and Star Wars, if he says it's fucking awesome, then I'm willing to at least suspend judgement until I see the film. He's not quite like Peter Jackson is to LOTR, but he's close, and he knows if he goes out on a limb in praise of the movie and it sucks, no one is ever going to believe him again. Not to mention that if he pisses off enough of his fan base (which have a large number of Star Wars fans), his upcoming sequel to Clerks will be a complete bomb.
As an Electronic Monk, I totally believe this will happen!
I tested and wrote for a trade publication that did hardware and software reviews for three years. During that time, I learned the following:
One has to wonder what would have happened if the British had such draconian measures in place say around the 1770s. Would they have locked up Ben Franklin for printing Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," and "The Rights of Man?"
Any regime (which is what the current administration has turned into) that cannot allow free speech should not be allowed to stand. Or at least I believe that's what Patrick Henry might say in this situation.
The same can be said of any competitive field, especially those centered around "harnessing" (maybe "harvesting" is more correct?) creativity.
Ask any assistant professor at a top university, and they would say all the same things. So would any professional comedian, actor, singer, musician, writer, or artist. Hell, ask most politicians and the answer wouldn't be any different.
I'm not saying that makes it right, but it does seem to be par for the course when it comes to competitive human endeavor. I find all the Slashdot stories about how horrible it is to work in the gaming industry very interesting. Most computer nerds seem to shy away from conflict and uncomfortable situations, and thus all these posts that say essentially "You'd never see me working for a company like that."
But the truth is that those creative types (even geeky ones) who actually try to make a living at it never have had it easy. Galileo? Excommunicated. Copernicus and Tycho Brahe? Had to make their real money as astrolgers. Van Gogh? Crazy and poor. And most everyone else didn't really "make it" until after they were dead.
It doesn't come down to what you have to overcome to do what you love, it comes down to the fact you love it so you'll try and overcome whatever tries to stop you.
Just lock up the two of them and tell them it is a fight to the death to decide whose "creative vision" will be used to create the next Star Trek series.
Can't wait to see Shatner with a "lirpa" in his hands again!
I can almost here the music now!
Go to Tools>Templates and Add-ins Under Templates, uncheck PDFMaker.dot. It will not load it anymore. Or you could simply leave, and choose to not view that Toolbar. Not sure what the big freaking deal is.
If you're doing semantic markup, you end up with a nicely formatted page that is easy to read on any size screen.
As far as strict XHTML, working with different broswers basically comes down to IE 6, Firefox, and Konqueror-based browsers, It's really not that hard to come up a design that works in all three, and even have it look cool too.