I used to be one of the mac heads who said "Apple will never do that because hardware makes them their money." This is true... at the moment. However, if a huge company like IBM can get out of the desktop PC market, why can't Apple? See just because clones nearly killed Apple doesn't mean someone else can't figure out the right way to change their business model.
Perhaps Steve has the vision to actually pull it off.
While I do not doubt this will in fact be the case, I would appreciate more accurate reporting on the part of the Slashdot editors to ensure that submitters are not spreading misinformation.
Right now Apple is a hardware company, but look at their two hardware lines. First you have their Macs. Traditionally their bread and butter, they sell high end high quality computers. If you wanted the OS you buy the hardware.
Now look at their other line, the iPod. The iPod is a means to drive people to their iTunes store. They lose money on the iPod to drive people to the store to make money on that. It's a completely different model.
From a money making standpoint they are two different companies. Is Steve poised to change the way Apple does business? The way hardware works these days, your hardware does not matter as much as it used to. What matters is the face of your computer, which is your OS. And what if Steve makes a huge push by selling Mac OS X on intel for any intel platform? What if 5 percent of the market switches because they are tired of Microsoft? What if 10 percent switch? That's an absolutely huge bump in market share, and that translates to very nice profits.
That being said, I doubt if they switch to this model that "piracy" is the way they are going. Might be nice to seed this to the geeks, but look forward to Apple instituting DRM in OS X to cut down on copying. Right now OS X has little copy protection, though to effectively pirate the tiger installer you need to have a DVD writer.
(Yes I know this because a friend of mine wanted my 10.4 installer but only had a CD drive, and I had a DVD-CD combo drive and Apple only put a DVD installer into the box, you have to send away for the CDs and pay a media fee. So I wanted to try to make a disk image and have copy the image to his Mac but the installer requires you reboot from your CD/DVD drive and since it wasn't on that drive, it wouldn't let us install. Yes I'm a dirty pirate for wanting to let my friend install 10.4 using my DVD so sue me!)
do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?
No, but a website that runs a article designed to insite a nuclear flame war, and written by a man who could be described as the love child between John Dvorak and Satan is guarenteed to generate a shitload of hits from said evangelists who plan on posting a lot of their own scathing articles of this article.
But in this day and age of the web, links and hits mean profits, specifically from ads. Hits simply drive up ad revenue, and Critics posting articles with links will only up the PageRank on Google, which means higher ad revenue and more links.
It's only my personal opinion, but of the articles I've seen on MacObserver, I haven't seen very many of substance. They are probably just trying to fan the ever burning flames of Mac evangelism for profit.
The problem is that you are assuming that these people are being offensive or annoying or refusing to bathe or what not. Geeks are simply shuned because they are different and people can't always take that. Being annoying is one thing, but if you spent all your life trying to deal with life and being nice to everyone and all you got was shit back from society, you'd want to avoid society.
If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. Society as a whole is definitely part of the problem.
In the US we call this the classic popular vs. geek syndrome. It's very similar, the only problem in Japan is that by this an other articles I've read it's worse. In the US, we at least pay lip service to the idea of individuality. We also have tons of people who are terribly protective of our right (perceived or otherwise) to own our own copies of music and TV and do what we want to our own bodies.
However, in Japan, my perception as a Gaijin is that Japan's social structure is far far more rigid. You fly this way, or else face social rejection!
Why do geeks in the US withdraw into themselves? Because society shuns them! Why to geeks in Japan withdraw into their houses? Because society shuns them!
My point? Well the article misses the problem because it suffers from the US perception of geeks as weird and shunned. The problem is not the geek, it's the people who shun them. Maybe society needs to be more accepting of these peoples behaviors and appearances add not judge them on actions that do not hurt other people. Otherwise it's society itself that's to blame for people who cannot interact with the rest of society.
A man who is right about one in about every 1,000,000 stories is not suddenly a better reporter when that one right article comes around. Dvorak got lucky plain and simple'
I remember correctly, most pundits, including Dvorak, were saying that Apple "should" switch. Jobs said he "must" switch. Also, people like Dvorak are saying they should switch to an all Intel architecture, which Apple is not doing. We will probably still be locked into Apple hardware to run Apple software, at least for the time being. Dvorak's reasons for asking for the switch were because they thought the platform would expand the mac OS further by being compatible with more hardware.
And since that's not what's going to happen, Dvorak is still for the most part wrong. It's just such a huge thing that that all the pundits are scrambling to put news out there on it, when they barely even paid attention to what is really being said.
While I think it would be a tremendous boon to the average consumer to unlock the hardware lockin for the mac OS, I don't think that will be something that happens any time soon.
As I said the best ideas survived, implying that the not so great ones did not survive. That's the nature of business The difference between now and pre 2000 is that the amount of venture capital available specifically for internet business ideas was obscene, but the percentage of businesses that succeeded vs the number failed was no different, there were just lots more ideas launched. Hence the number of failures AND successes went up. However, the more ideas that succeeded, the better for consumers.
The bottom line is that you have to follow the money. We are in a era when game companies are being bought, merging, and growing fast. As game companies get bigger, innovation slows. This is the same with all companies. First you come up with some great ideas, then you put those ideas out in the real world and make a huge amount of money off them. Then you refine your process and repeat until it becomes a cash cow, and only attempt to alter the process as market fluctuates. During this latter time you aren't innovating that much, just slowly evolving. This is the nature of all business.
Unfortunately as any entertainment industry grows, the market for edgy and unique games gets further and further marginalized. The populace wants more of what they had last year, only bigger and better. Why do you think the summer blockbuster movie season looks the same every year? Because this is what a majority of people want and/or what they are willing to see.
You have to start scouring the net for smaller software companies online, much like you have to visit art house cinema deep in major cities to find the truly great movies of the year. It woul be nicer if the economy was more like the pre year 2000 era when all these obnoxiously crazy ideas were out there and tons of venture capital was available to try them out, and the best ideas survived. We lost that era and now all those companies are merging with each other and not coming up with risky new ideas.
Apparently he didn't care much about his job, because according to his post when he was asked to resign he did. However, I do feel if it was that important to him, he should have refused to resign and put up a fight in order to make a stink about it. This would have done exactly what the director did not want, cast a huge light on the situation.
Because now he has no leverage. This sucks, and I sympathize but what can be done? If he still had his job, for example it would be a man standing up for his principles and at the same time a man who has a right to his job. That's the kind of thing you can try to milk.
I like the interface as it stands now, very simple and easy to use. I'd like more content, but that can be added easily. My Yahoo jazzed up their interface and ruined some aspects but added no new content, which now bug the hell out of me.
Now all they need are TV listings, along with the ability to customize the listing, and customize the theaters I see, and I'm set.
1) Ebert who's paid by a newspaper who's editors rely on ad revenue from the same movie.
2) RottenTomatoes.com, who caters to a jaded cynical crowd, much like those here on slashdot (and also relies on ad revenue).
3) yourself?
Then again, once you pay and get into the movie theater, you can't get your money back if you didn't like the movie, so let's just all agree that very few of us slashdotters will be satisfied with a Star Wars movie ever again and either we need to accept being screwed or just shut up and go home. I mean seriously!?!?:)
I consider the sci-fi channel one of the smallest fish in the cable company. I also consider it's viewers more unique than any other.
That said, would the same thing happen if Food Network came up with the same kind of show? Would Desperate Housewives be as big of a hit at it was if episodes were pirated? Would it really get as big a share? How about West wing or Alias?
See, while I tout this as a victory against overzealous controls on copywrite, this can be discounted. At best, it's those with technical knowhow and net savvy using it to learn about good entertainment. At worst (as big networks will most definitely spin it) it's a bunch of fanboys and fangirls of sci-fi spending time on a small niche.
I think some time should be spent on more research of these phenomenons, but there's too much money in advertisements these days and it will take a long time to change. I don't think this is a network killer....but this is the first step...
I'm seeing some arguments than in 5-10 years, that many cell phones will have the capability to run MP3s. I believe that there is a very good chance of that, because technology improves over time.
Except that's just it... technology improves over time.
The important thing that no one can gauge is if the iPod will improve over time. Ignoring any perceived quality issues, what if the iPod starts doing things a cell phone can't, or does things better.
Or maybe Bill is right in a weird way, and the iPod BECOMES a phone?
I.E. this article is horseshit propoganda, no one knows exactly what's happening in 5 years and Bill has not addressed all the variables.
Of all things, the klingons made the most sense in Star Trek, including the bat'leths. Klingons are highly ceremonial, huge on dogma, tradition, and what they deem is "honorable behavior," whether or not it makes logical sense or not. If you don't think that's possible, please consult your local american news channel and look for any news story with the word "Republican" in it.
A race like the zindi will come up with a huge mega weapon to destroy your planet so that you wouldn't see it coming. However, to the Klingons it was important to their society that they be able to beam down to the surface, whip out their hand to hand weapons, and disembowel you personally. It's the honorable way to kill an enemy!
I can understand your confusion about the jedi, but Klingons are easy. The explanation of "It's just their way" works very well here, and provided entertainment value.
And Fort SUMTER was in South Carolina, a state which seceeded from the union, and wished to take its territory back from a government with which it was no longer affiliated.
Sorry for the misspelling.
I don't dispute your claims about the journalist nor the supreme court justice. However now you are rationalizing, because those points are moot.
My main point is that the south FIRED on the north. The south were the aggressors in the war. Any other view is propoganda. The attack on Fort Sumter is fact, period.
I'm not even going to bother with your mini rant over the emancipation proclamation. Slavery is wrong, pure and simple, I don't care what technicalities you wish to impose then or now, true or false. Thankfully it does not exist legally anywhere in the US any more.
I would like to remind everyone that it was the SOUTH that fired on Fort Sumner first in the American Civil War.
But that's okay, the south is half the reason why we are in this mess in the first place. They've voted solidly Republican in the last two elections. Now I want New England, the midwest and the west coast to cede and throw off the stupid states!
The latest fad in american business and politics is to spread FUD like it's going out of style. In post 9/11 america, it works way too well, especially for a people who lost the ability to reason a long time ago, if they ever had it.
This may seem like an incredibly stupid thing to say, but in reality you just have to follow the money. The RIAA doesn't like the iTunes model because Apple has this segment of the market locked up real nice because their system works so well for 90% of the American public. With power comes control of the cash. If the RIAA tries to leverage itself against iTunes, the egomaniacal Jobs will push back, because he likes using his power.
Market power translates directly to money, for all those who don't understand why companies like Microsoft have $40 billion in the bank. Apple has a lot of say over what gets sold and for how much. Too much for the comfort of the RIAA.
Bottom line, The RIAA wants to chip away at iTunes' power and get more of it themselves. The more power they get, the more money they get. And Joe consumer will buy it because only those educated in the supply chain of music understand the details.
Children under 13 can still attend the movie in the US if they are accompanied by an adult, however.
Do you know how many people I see bringing their 5 year old kids into violent R-rated movies? It's ridiculous.
Lucas said he was getting "a lot of flak" from parents concerned about the film's US rating.
"A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said.
Oh for %^&#%^()%$# sake! Yanno, I'm a fan of Star Wars, even of the new movies, but if I were to miss the 12:01 showing of episode 3 (yes I'm going to that!) I won't be terribly disappointed. My son wants to go to the 12:01, but I won't let him because it's a school night. We'll see it on the weekend together when we have time.
My son was something like 5 I think when they re-released the original trilogy on the big screen. He was immediately hooked. If he was 5 when this movie came out, I'd go see it first then decide if I could take him. If I said no, then my son is going to have to live with that. It's not going to kill anyone not to see these movies, even a fan. I admit I'm lucky here because he's 13. Frankly, I think he can deal with it now, and not just because he's 13.
If we had to miss this movie because of some life altering event which required my attention, I'd grow up and deal with it and you better believe I'd make him grow up real quick.
Lucas on an artistic level owes me a decent movie, but on a parenting level he owes me jack shit.
Frankly this is just another symptom of Hollywood. They hype the hell out of something, then a restriction gets placed on it, and people get upset because they think they are entitled to this. It's a vicious circle?
Where the hell am I going with this? I don't know. Parents want entertainment catered to their exact whims, and think that some how people owe them exactly what they want. Hollywood wants everyone to go to every movie, but yet absolve themselves of responsibility in case someone decides to take their 3 year old to "Alien vs. Predator" because "Well we did tell you the rating on that movie was inappropriate for children."
Okay I don't want to seem like a troll but the parent is right. Name a sci fi series that in the past 20 years has lasted more than two seasons on network (NETWORK) TV.
To further this point, think about the ones that have. I can name "quantum leap" as one of these series, but how sci-fi was it really? It had a sci fi premise, but the theme wasn't steeped very deep in sci-fi. It was a great show don't get me wrong, but in order to be successful with sci-fi and the american viewing public you have got to either mask it a bit, use an established name like star trek, or go onto the sci-fi channel.
Bab5 was an exception, and even then, in the height of its popularity, it wasn't pulling enough of a ratings share and the time slot moved a hell of a lot until TNT finally said enough, we'll air the last season and shut the networks up.
Sci-fi still is a big risk and it will be until general fan base for sci fi grows. It hasn't for years and won't for a long time.
Okay, like many slashdotters, I have a short attention span and I don't remember this "public" story about Comair committing this blunder.
I have a real question. Why did Comair's system fail in the first place? Was it due to a design flaw requiring it's replacement in 2004? Was it an irreplaceable piece of hardware which died?
The Article smacks of FUD, only because systems fail for a reason. The article conveniently leaves out the reason for the failure. I think this is critical to any risk analysis. For example, if I have a 20 year old system that I can't get parts for, that's a high risk system. However, if I can get parts for a 20 year old system, then the risk is lower.
I don't like the idea of making assumptions that just because a system is 20 years old, that it absolutely must be replaced. I also don't like the assumption in the article that I already know the facts, so here's the analysis for you. I want the facts to back it up so I can come to my own conclusion.
Quoth the article: It's official: Tempe will become the first major metropolitan area in the United States to deploy citywide wireless Internet access.
Philadelphia has the same project going. Philly's project I think still needs city council approval, but you can't lay claim to this title until the network is installed, tested and running.
I will say I won't be surprised if the philly project does get bogged down, but then again Mayor Street got the sports complex through city council a couple years back, he might be able to force this one through too.
Seems to be a little publicity grabbing going on here.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to be one of the mac heads who said "Apple will never do that because hardware makes them their money." This is true... at the moment. However, if a huge company like IBM can get out of the desktop PC market, why can't Apple? See just because clones nearly killed Apple doesn't mean someone else can't figure out the right way to change their business model.
Perhaps Steve has the vision to actually pull it off.
While I do not doubt this will in fact be the case, I would appreciate more accurate reporting on the part of the Slashdot editors to ensure that submitters are not spreading misinformation.
I'm sorry you must be new here....
Right now Apple is a hardware company, but look at their two hardware lines. First you have their Macs. Traditionally their bread and butter, they sell high end high quality computers. If you wanted the OS you buy the hardware.
Now look at their other line, the iPod. The iPod is a means to drive people to their iTunes store. They lose money on the iPod to drive people to the store to make money on that. It's a completely different model.
From a money making standpoint they are two different companies. Is Steve poised to change the way Apple does business? The way hardware works these days, your hardware does not matter as much as it used to. What matters is the face of your computer, which is your OS. And what if Steve makes a huge push by selling Mac OS X on intel for any intel platform? What if 5 percent of the market switches because they are tired of Microsoft? What if 10 percent switch? That's an absolutely huge bump in market share, and that translates to very nice profits.
That being said, I doubt if they switch to this model that "piracy" is the way they are going. Might be nice to seed this to the geeks, but look forward to Apple instituting DRM in OS X to cut down on copying. Right now OS X has little copy protection, though to effectively pirate the tiger installer you need to have a DVD writer.
(Yes I know this because a friend of mine wanted my 10.4 installer but only had a CD drive, and I had a DVD-CD combo drive and Apple only put a DVD installer into the box, you have to send away for the CDs and pay a media fee. So I wanted to try to make a disk image and have copy the image to his Mac but the installer requires you reboot from your CD/DVD drive and since it wasn't on that drive, it wouldn't let us install. Yes I'm a dirty pirate for wanting to let my friend install 10.4 using my DVD so sue me!)
do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?
No, but a website that runs a article designed to insite a nuclear flame war, and written by a man who could be described as the love child between John Dvorak and Satan is guarenteed to generate a shitload of hits from said evangelists who plan on posting a lot of their own scathing articles of this article.
But in this day and age of the web, links and hits mean profits, specifically from ads. Hits simply drive up ad revenue, and Critics posting articles with links will only up the PageRank on Google, which means higher ad revenue and more links.
It's only my personal opinion, but of the articles I've seen on MacObserver, I haven't seen very many of substance. They are probably just trying to fan the ever burning flames of Mac evangelism for profit.
The problem is that you are assuming that these people are being offensive or annoying or refusing to bathe or what not. Geeks are simply shuned because they are different and people can't always take that. Being annoying is one thing, but if you spent all your life trying to deal with life and being nice to everyone and all you got was shit back from society, you'd want to avoid society.
If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. Society as a whole is definitely part of the problem.
In the US we call this the classic popular vs. geek syndrome. It's very similar, the only problem in Japan is that by this an other articles I've read it's worse. In the US, we at least pay lip service to the idea of individuality. We also have tons of people who are terribly protective of our right (perceived or otherwise) to own our own copies of music and TV and do what we want to our own bodies.
However, in Japan, my perception as a Gaijin is that Japan's social structure is far far more rigid. You fly this way, or else face social rejection!
Why do geeks in the US withdraw into themselves? Because society shuns them! Why to geeks in Japan withdraw into their houses? Because society shuns them!
My point? Well the article misses the problem because it suffers from the US perception of geeks as weird and shunned. The problem is not the geek, it's the people who shun them. Maybe society needs to be more accepting of these peoples behaviors and appearances add not judge them on actions that do not hurt other people. Otherwise it's society itself that's to blame for people who cannot interact with the rest of society.
A man who is right about one in about every 1,000,000 stories is not suddenly a better reporter when that one right article comes around. Dvorak got lucky plain and simple'
I remember correctly, most pundits, including Dvorak, were saying that Apple "should" switch. Jobs said he "must" switch. Also, people like Dvorak are saying they should switch to an all Intel architecture, which Apple is not doing. We will probably still be locked into Apple hardware to run Apple software, at least for the time being. Dvorak's reasons for asking for the switch were because they thought the platform would expand the mac OS further by being compatible with more hardware.
And since that's not what's going to happen, Dvorak is still for the most part wrong. It's just such a huge thing that that all the pundits are scrambling to put news out there on it, when they barely even paid attention to what is really being said.
While I think it would be a tremendous boon to the average consumer to unlock the hardware lockin for the mac OS, I don't think that will be something that happens any time soon.
As I said the best ideas survived, implying that the not so great ones did not survive. That's the nature of business The difference between now and pre 2000 is that the amount of venture capital available specifically for internet business ideas was obscene, but the percentage of businesses that succeeded vs the number failed was no different, there were just lots more ideas launched. Hence the number of failures AND successes went up. However, the more ideas that succeeded, the better for consumers.
The bottom line is that you have to follow the money. We are in a era when game companies are being bought, merging, and growing fast. As game companies get bigger, innovation slows. This is the same with all companies. First you come up with some great ideas, then you put those ideas out in the real world and make a huge amount of money off them. Then you refine your process and repeat until it becomes a cash cow, and only attempt to alter the process as market fluctuates. During this latter time you aren't innovating that much, just slowly evolving. This is the nature of all business.
Unfortunately as any entertainment industry grows, the market for edgy and unique games gets further and further marginalized. The populace wants more of what they had last year, only bigger and better. Why do you think the summer blockbuster movie season looks the same every year? Because this is what a majority of people want and/or what they are willing to see.
You have to start scouring the net for smaller software companies online, much like you have to visit art house cinema deep in major cities to find the truly great movies of the year. It woul be nicer if the economy was more like the pre year 2000 era when all these obnoxiously crazy ideas were out there and tons of venture capital was available to try them out, and the best ideas survived. We lost that era and now all those companies are merging with each other and not coming up with risky new ideas.
And see how they compare as well.
Apparently he didn't care much about his job, because according to his post when he was asked to resign he did. However, I do feel if it was that important to him, he should have refused to resign and put up a fight in order to make a stink about it. This would have done exactly what the director did not want, cast a huge light on the situation.
Because now he has no leverage. This sucks, and I sympathize but what can be done? If he still had his job, for example it would be a man standing up for his principles and at the same time a man who has a right to his job. That's the kind of thing you can try to milk.
I like the interface as it stands now, very simple and easy to use. I'd like more content, but that can be added easily. My Yahoo jazzed up their interface and ruined some aspects but added no new content, which now bug the hell out of me.
Now all they need are TV listings, along with the ability to customize the listing, and customize the theaters I see, and I'm set.
Okay who's the best barometer?
:)
1) Ebert who's paid by a newspaper who's editors rely on ad revenue from the same movie.
2) RottenTomatoes.com, who caters to a jaded cynical crowd, much like those here on slashdot (and also relies on ad revenue).
3) yourself?
Then again, once you pay and get into the movie theater, you can't get your money back if you didn't like the movie, so let's just all agree that very few of us slashdotters will be satisfied with a Star Wars movie ever again and either we need to accept being screwed or just shut up and go home. I mean seriously!?!?
I consider the sci-fi channel one of the smallest fish in the cable company. I also consider it's viewers more unique than any other.
...but this is the first step...
That said, would the same thing happen if Food Network came up with the same kind of show? Would Desperate Housewives be as big of a hit at it was if episodes were pirated? Would it really get as big a share? How about West wing or Alias?
See, while I tout this as a victory against overzealous controls on copywrite, this can be discounted. At best, it's those with technical knowhow and net savvy using it to learn about good entertainment. At worst (as big networks will most definitely spin it) it's a bunch of fanboys and fangirls of sci-fi spending time on a small niche.
I think some time should be spent on more research of these phenomenons, but there's too much money in advertisements these days and it will take a long time to change. I don't think this is a network killer.
Do not taunt happy fun iPod....
I'm seeing some arguments than in 5-10 years, that many cell phones will have the capability to run MP3s. I believe that there is a very good chance of that, because technology improves over time.
Except that's just it... technology improves over time.
The important thing that no one can gauge is if the iPod will improve over time. Ignoring any perceived quality issues, what if the iPod starts doing things a cell phone can't, or does things better.
Or maybe Bill is right in a weird way, and the iPod BECOMES a phone?
I.E. this article is horseshit propoganda, no one knows exactly what's happening in 5 years and Bill has not addressed all the variables.
Of all things, the klingons made the most sense in Star Trek, including the bat'leths. Klingons are highly ceremonial, huge on dogma, tradition, and what they deem is "honorable behavior," whether or not it makes logical sense or not. If you don't think that's possible, please consult your local american news channel and look for any news story with the word "Republican" in it.
A race like the zindi will come up with a huge mega weapon to destroy your planet so that you wouldn't see it coming. However, to the Klingons it was important to their society that they be able to beam down to the surface, whip out their hand to hand weapons, and disembowel you personally. It's the honorable way to kill an enemy!
I can understand your confusion about the jedi, but Klingons are easy. The explanation of "It's just their way" works very well here, and provided entertainment value.
And Fort SUMTER was in South Carolina, a state which seceeded from the union, and wished to take its territory back from a government with which it was no longer affiliated.
Sorry for the misspelling.
I don't dispute your claims about the journalist nor the supreme court justice. However now you are rationalizing, because those points are moot.
My main point is that the south FIRED on the north. The south were the aggressors in the war. Any other view is propoganda. The attack on Fort Sumter is fact, period.
I'm not even going to bother with your mini rant over the emancipation proclamation. Slavery is wrong, pure and simple,
I don't care what technicalities you wish to impose then or now, true or false. Thankfully it does not exist legally anywhere in the US any more.
I would like to remind everyone that it was the SOUTH that fired on Fort Sumner first in the American Civil War.
But that's okay, the south is half the reason why we are in this mess in the first place. They've voted solidly Republican in the last two elections. Now I want New England, the midwest and the west coast to cede and throw off the stupid states!
The latest fad in american business and politics is to spread FUD like it's going out of style. In post 9/11 america, it works way too well, especially for a people who lost the ability to reason a long time ago, if they ever had it.
This may seem like an incredibly stupid thing to say, but in reality you just have to follow the money. The RIAA doesn't like the iTunes model because Apple has this segment of the market locked up real nice because their system works so well for 90% of the American public. With power comes control of the cash. If the RIAA tries to leverage itself against iTunes, the egomaniacal Jobs will push back, because he likes using his power.
Market power translates directly to money, for all those who don't understand why companies like Microsoft have $40 billion in the bank. Apple has a lot of say over what gets sold and for how much. Too much for the comfort of the RIAA.
Bottom line, The RIAA wants to chip away at iTunes' power and get more of it themselves. The more power they get, the more money they get. And Joe consumer will buy it because only those educated in the supply chain of music understand the details.
Children under 13 can still attend the movie in the US if they are accompanied by an adult, however.
Do you know how many people I see bringing their 5 year old kids into violent R-rated movies? It's ridiculous.
Lucas said he was getting "a lot of flak" from parents concerned about the film's US rating.
"A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said.
Oh for %^&#%^()%$# sake! Yanno, I'm a fan of Star Wars, even of the new movies, but if I were to miss the 12:01 showing of episode 3 (yes I'm going to that!) I won't be terribly disappointed. My son wants to go to the 12:01, but I won't let him because it's a school night. We'll see it on the weekend together when we have time.
My son was something like 5 I think when they re-released the original trilogy on the big screen. He was immediately hooked. If he was 5 when this movie came out, I'd go see it first then decide if I could take him. If I said no, then my son is going to have to live with that. It's not going to kill anyone not to see these movies, even a fan. I admit I'm lucky here because he's 13. Frankly, I think he can deal with it now, and not just because he's 13.
If we had to miss this movie because of some life altering event which required my attention, I'd grow up and deal with it and you better believe I'd make him grow up real quick.
Lucas on an artistic level owes me a decent movie, but on a parenting level he owes me jack shit.
Frankly this is just another symptom of Hollywood. They hype the hell out of something, then a restriction gets placed on it, and people get upset because they think they are entitled to this. It's a vicious circle?
Where the hell am I going with this? I don't know. Parents want entertainment catered to their exact whims, and think that some how people owe them exactly what they want. Hollywood wants everyone to go to every movie, but yet absolve themselves of responsibility in case someone decides to take their 3 year old to "Alien vs. Predator" because "Well we did tell you the rating on that movie was inappropriate for children."
A nude Natalie Portman would easily triple viewership of the movie.
Okay I don't want to seem like a troll but the parent is right. Name a sci fi series that in the past 20 years has lasted more than two seasons on network (NETWORK) TV.
To further this point, think about the ones that have. I can name "quantum leap" as one of these series, but how sci-fi was it really? It had a sci fi premise, but the theme wasn't steeped very deep in sci-fi. It was a great show don't get me wrong, but in order to be successful with sci-fi and the american viewing public you have got to either mask it a bit, use an established name like star trek, or go onto the sci-fi channel.
Bab5 was an exception, and even then, in the height of its popularity, it wasn't pulling enough of a ratings share and the time slot moved a hell of a lot until TNT finally said enough, we'll air the last season and shut the networks up.
Sci-fi still is a big risk and it will be until general fan base for sci fi grows. It hasn't for years and won't for a long time.
Okay, like many slashdotters, I have a short attention span and I don't remember this "public" story about Comair committing this blunder.
I have a real question. Why did Comair's system fail in the first place? Was it due to a design flaw requiring it's replacement in 2004? Was it an irreplaceable piece of hardware which died?
The Article smacks of FUD, only because systems fail for a reason. The article conveniently leaves out the reason for the failure. I think this is critical to any risk analysis. For example, if I have a 20 year old system that I can't get parts for, that's a high risk system. However, if I can get parts for a 20 year old system, then the risk is lower.
I don't like the idea of making assumptions that just because a system is 20 years old, that it absolutely must be replaced. I also don't like the assumption in the article that I already know the facts, so here's the analysis for you. I want the facts to back it up so I can come to my own conclusion.
Quoth the article: It's official: Tempe will become the first major metropolitan area in the United States to deploy citywide wireless Internet access.
Philadelphia has the same project going. Philly's project I think still needs city council approval, but you can't lay claim to this title until the network is installed, tested and running.
I will say I won't be surprised if the philly project does get bogged down, but then again Mayor Street got the sports complex through city council a couple years back, he might be able to force this one through too.
Seems to be a little publicity grabbing going on here.