You just need to find a critic or two that you usually agree with. Much better than random fan reviews, because you also know where you are likely to disagree with them when reading their new reviews. That's sort of a good idea, but no one is going to be in complete agreement with you, not every time.
Plus some movies are horribly mismarketed to gain a wider audience opening day. The trailers for Mr. & Mrs. Smith made it look like an action film when it really had the making of a dark comedy with some violence thrown in. Speed Racer was marketed (in my opinion) as an action film instead of what it was, a simple little movie where Neo is a playable character in Mario Kart.
Then, once the movie has been marketed to gain a wider opening day, rather than appealing to its true audience, then you have to deal with critics who may or many not have honest opinions about the movies they review. Like Earl Ditman (sp?). If I see a movie commercial crediting him as praising a movie, I avoid it, as it's a last ditch promotional effort. Mind you that's from personal experience.
Too many people rely on reviews before they see a movie these days. Sometimes you just have to take a chance, go see a movie, and expect nothing more than to have a little fun.
I'm not sure if he still plans on doing so, but at one point my friend was insisting that his two children both have a tech support job for one year as their first job, specifically customer-support at an ISP. It was two-pronged reasoning: Get them used to being crapped on (it is something everyone should learn to deal with), and developing communication skills to use in later careers.
I dismissed his idea at first, but the more I thought about it, my in-person and over-the-phone communication skills have greatly improved over the years. And especially working end-user support, you learn even when you solve every single problem, they'll still complain about how you did it.
I'll probably leave this tech job after 3 years, actually. It seems to be a standard around here.
Okay, I should have emphasized a point that I thought was implied, but if this system were possible to be implimented (however modified) it would only permit for one activation. (Hence the lamenting about possible re-install issues.)
Not a perfect idea, but I think it is an explorable alternative to what's being chosen for gamers by publishers.
If the publisher wants to prevent piracy (specifically CD keys and other activation codes) why not just modify the initial activation process just a little?
Possible scenerio: You buy the game. You install the game. You go online to register the game. It prompts you for the CD key, and then, after that, a password that you create. The key and the password are stored together on a remote server, and if someone activates a copy of the game without the corresponding password, the activation fails.
I understand that there would be some re-install issues due to system crashes and what not, but I feel a "help us prevent it" approach would be better than a "lets assume you're a thief" vibe the 10-day method gives.
if the paint is used by more than one person and/or one brush
if the paint is used on more than one object
if the paint is used on an object that contains (residue of) paint from a competitive paint-manufacturer
if the paint is used on an object that is for non-personal use
if the paint is being used by a professional painter and/or if there is any financial compensation involved
the paint manufacturer can sue you as well.
They might even sue you for not closing the lid, leaving the paint in plain sight without any protective measures, lending the paint to a friend, improper use of the paint, etc.
Just like Monster is a copy of Red Bull and Windows is a copy of Mac and Toyota is a copy of Ford and an iPod is a copy of a (cd?)walkman. The fact that Linux shares no code is really the subject. Misleading article title. Actually, the article title is accurate as it's a direct quote from McBride. Slashdot isn't advocating that statement, just quoting what McBride has said, whether he is incorrect or not.
Case in point, where I used to live, most of the county's traffic went through one particular city. The main road through that city was actually, at one time, one of the 10 most accident-prone roads in the US.
So, the city attempted to have a bill introduced: If you didn't have a registered residential address in that city, and you were involved in the accident (not even at fault, just involved) the total costs for the Sheriff's Dept., EMS, Fire Rescue, all of that would come out of the pocket of the non-resident.
It didn't pass. Actually this was the same city where the city government itself was almost dissolved and controlled by the County government.
I am impressed by the judge. It is nice to see a case where the defendant was not at the mercy of expensive lawyers, and the judge actually took a look at the case law before making a decision. Me too. This was a good day for the rule of law. If the defendant is found to be innocent does the Judge's decision today set a decent precedent?
Actually, Apple did have an approved Mac Clone program. Companies such as Daystar and UMAX took part in it. The result? People wanted to buy Macs, not clones.
From the Psyster website: Sorry about being Quicktime-only but this was put together in OS X Leopard, using Final Cut Pro, on an Open Computer.
are you really not able to create non-quicktime video on an Apple? You assume their using an Apple and not one of their own products.
Apple legal isn't going to let this stand. Even IF everything is legit, they won't have the money to defend themselves against Apple.
If this one-man wonder of a company totally screws up, which is likely, it will just reinforce the notion in consumer's minds that the best purveyor of Macs is *drumroll* Apple.
It doesn't even have to be a one-man wonder of a company. Look at Daystar. They had permission to create official Mac clones, and those didn't take.
Am I the only one who thinks it would be hilarious if every model they shipped out contained a faulty motherboard... Well, the hardware would have the same functionality as the 800 Mhz G3 iBook.
It shouldn't be long. I believe that the Apple legal team was actually waiting to see if one of these units actually shipped (up until that point, it's fraud I believe, not any sort of infringement). I'm certain that Apple had someone within the company purchase one as well so they can evaluate it up close.
If we're going to start using the term "grayware" to describe software that falls somewhere between a useful application and a piece of malware, then we need to start using the term "blackware" to refer to malware, and "whiteware" to refer to useful software. By the same token, some software could be "light gray ware," other could be "dark gray ware," et cetera. Whiteware that contains exploitable bugs should be termed "off-white ware" and security software which would otherwise be termed whiteware but could be used by a malcontent for evil purposes should be termed "whiteware with black polka dots." We could further extend this concept to include whiteware that could be dangerous if misused, such as software that controls a nuclear rocket; such software would be termed "redware." Software that helps the environment would be called "greenware." Now all we need is something for "blueware" and we can use the entire color space to describe a computer program. This is exactly the kind of forward thinking I'm looking for in a lead designer for my new "tealware" project!
Actually, that was not accurate, according to IBM. IBM announced today there are no plans to switch entirely to Apple computers, and that this is for software development/testing purposes only.
I'm not worried about what Dreamworks may do to GitS, and that's because last time I checked they had optioned the rights to Casshern, and haven't done a thing with that, either.
Actually, considering legitimate registration happened on the average of 1 user a week, it was fairly successful for a few months.
We only came into problems with it when we stopped updating it. (Reasons beyond the control of the volunteers caused this.)
We just kept a few different versions of the registration script, and changed the question as necessary.
Also, the point of it was to be as unintrusive to the user as possible. Honestly, the way I see some captchas today it could honestly take me two times, when I've sworn I've typed it in correctly. We wanted to avoid as many headaches as possible, and legitimate sign-ups didn't really notice.
Actually, when we had a captcha problem on a forum I helped work on, we just installed an additional question. "Are you human? Yes/No". We would either change the question ("Are you a bot? Yes/No") or the default answers periodically.
As a Mac User, and a Realist, I feel a sudden urge to express my opinions bluntly, without remorse, smuggly and wearing a turtleneck, yet my opinions are not irrational, bolsterous claims. And the turtleneck? Machine washable.
Apple likes to control the hardware, that's no secret. In fact, I believe if Microsoft only had to design an OS for two or three active production models at any given time, Windows might be far more reliable than I find it to be.
Apple also likes to control the software. As does Microsoft. Both companies are, understandably, against the piracy of their operating systems. It's Microsoft's bread-and-butter, and the main feature pushing Apple's hardware.
Apple is reaching a very crucial stage, where the demand for their product is extending outside of their intended production area. They want to sell both the hardware and the software, and this $399 OpenMac would be an incredible loss in sales.
It could also be a loss in integrity. OS X has not been evaluated on the OpenMac's configuration by anyone within Apple (that we know of) and therefore the stability of the operating system may not be what is expected of OS X on the Apple-branded hardware.
And if OS X isn't as reliable on the OpenMac as it is on an Apple-branded system, where will the fingers point? I doubt very much they'll point at the OpenMac team.
The blame may very well be put on Apple. "You can't make your software work on every computer! You won't let me install it whever I want! You don't let me use any piece of hardware I want!"
Apple has never claimed the above hypothetical comments, and for some reason, that's all I ever see expected of the operating system.
Apple's response may be to act against the OpenMac team as quickly as possible (as it may have already) and sweep this under the rug. Apple can also point to the EULA and say "Not authorized".
Or, Apple could say "Install at your own risk" and simply not offer any support for the operating system when installed on a non-approved PC. However, I feel that would be the worst possible decision, as the tech-world media would not only have a field day with that news, but the judge handling the inevitable class-action lawsuit as well.
Apple is trying to provide as solid a product as possible. They limit themselves to specific hardware models, and it is expensive. These prices are hidden before purchase, they're readily available. I weighed my options and used several PCs before I could finally afford my first iBook.
When I went shopping for a new car, I wanted the BMW Z3 that was sitting on the lot. I found the monthly payments to be outrageously expensive, and settled on a Mercury Sable. I didn't complain to BMW that they should make their car more affordable to everyone, or that they should allow just any other manufacturer produce the exact same car without asking for BMW seal of approval. I bit the bullet and took the cheaper option, which provided me the exact same functionality, without the pleasing but unnecessary asthetics.
If Apple branches out onto additional hardware, honestly that's all the operating system will boil down to: asthetics. The stability is in the hardware restrictions and the lack of options for expansion. And the stability is implied through the sale of a new PowerMac just as much as through the retail sale of a boxed-edition of Leopard. And if OS X doesn't live up to the hype on any other PC, it's Apple that will receive the backlash, not anyone else.
I'm sure an argument could spawn for years, back and forth about why Apple's business practices and the OS X EULA are hypocritical, unethical and flat-out wrong, but what's the point in arguing that?
My only question is this: if someone is so dissatisfied with the way a product is packaged why would they want to buy it and support that company at all?
Slashdot Mirror
Plus some movies are horribly mismarketed to gain a wider audience opening day. The trailers for Mr. & Mrs. Smith made it look like an action film when it really had the making of a dark comedy with some violence thrown in. Speed Racer was marketed (in my opinion) as an action film instead of what it was, a simple little movie where Neo is a playable character in Mario Kart.
Then, once the movie has been marketed to gain a wider opening day, rather than appealing to its true audience, then you have to deal with critics who may or many not have honest opinions about the movies they review. Like Earl Ditman (sp?). If I see a movie commercial crediting him as praising a movie, I avoid it, as it's a last ditch promotional effort. Mind you that's from personal experience.
Too many people rely on reviews before they see a movie these days. Sometimes you just have to take a chance, go see a movie, and expect nothing more than to have a little fun.
I'm not sure if he still plans on doing so, but at one point my friend was insisting that his two children both have a tech support job for one year as their first job, specifically customer-support at an ISP. It was two-pronged reasoning: Get them used to being crapped on (it is something everyone should learn to deal with), and developing communication skills to use in later careers.
I dismissed his idea at first, but the more I thought about it, my in-person and over-the-phone communication skills have greatly improved over the years. And especially working end-user support, you learn even when you solve every single problem, they'll still complain about how you did it.
I'll probably leave this tech job after 3 years, actually. It seems to be a standard around here.
Okay, I should have emphasized a point that I thought was implied, but if this system were possible to be implimented (however modified) it would only permit for one activation. (Hence the lamenting about possible re-install issues.)
Not a perfect idea, but I think it is an explorable alternative to what's being chosen for gamers by publishers.
If the publisher wants to prevent piracy (specifically CD keys and other activation codes) why not just modify the initial activation process just a little?
Possible scenerio: You buy the game. You install the game. You go online to register the game. It prompts you for the CD key, and then, after that, a password that you create. The key and the password are stored together on a remote server, and if someone activates a copy of the game without the corresponding password, the activation fails.
I understand that there would be some re-install issues due to system crashes and what not, but I feel a "help us prevent it" approach would be better than a "lets assume you're a thief" vibe the 10-day method gives.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of RIAA lawyers?
Yep, and depending on:
the paint manufacturer can sue you as well.
They might even sue you for not closing the lid, leaving the paint in plain sight without any protective measures, lending the paint to a friend, improper use of the paint, etc.
Sounds like my Homeowner's Association.Some states and cities are getting that attitude.
Case in point, where I used to live, most of the county's traffic went through one particular city. The main road through that city was actually, at one time, one of the 10 most accident-prone roads in the US.
So, the city attempted to have a bill introduced: If you didn't have a registered residential address in that city, and you were involved in the accident (not even at fault, just involved) the total costs for the Sheriff's Dept., EMS, Fire Rescue, all of that would come out of the pocket of the non-resident.
It didn't pass. Actually this was the same city where the city government itself was almost dissolved and controlled by the County government.
Screwy place.
I don't even think Court TV is still around. Last I heard it was TruTV and had primarily shows like "Cops" and "Worlds _____iest _____".
So if this goes through, will these three squatters be forced to bend over?
Actually, Apple did have an approved Mac Clone program. Companies such as Daystar and UMAX took part in it. The result? People wanted to buy Macs, not clones.
Apple legal isn't going to let this stand. Even IF everything is legit, they won't have the money to defend themselves against Apple.
If this one-man wonder of a company totally screws up, which is likely, it will just reinforce the notion in consumer's minds that the best purveyor of Macs is *drumroll* Apple.
It doesn't even have to be a one-man wonder of a company. Look at Daystar. They had permission to create official Mac clones, and those didn't take.From what I recall being offered, they would install the OS for an additional fee.
It shouldn't be long. I believe that the Apple legal team was actually waiting to see if one of these units actually shipped (up until that point, it's fraud I believe, not any sort of infringement). I'm certain that Apple had someone within the company purchase one as well so they can evaluate it up close.
Actually, that was not accurate, according to IBM. IBM announced today there are no plans to switch entirely to Apple computers, and that this is for software development/testing purposes only.
I'm not worried about what Dreamworks may do to GitS, and that's because last time I checked they had optioned the rights to Casshern, and haven't done a thing with that, either.
Actually, considering legitimate registration happened on the average of 1 user a week, it was fairly successful for a few months.
We only came into problems with it when we stopped updating it. (Reasons beyond the control of the volunteers caused this.)
We just kept a few different versions of the registration script, and changed the question as necessary.
Also, the point of it was to be as unintrusive to the user as possible. Honestly, the way I see some captchas today it could honestly take me two times, when I've sworn I've typed it in correctly. We wanted to avoid as many headaches as possible, and legitimate sign-ups didn't really notice.
Actually, when we had a captcha problem on a forum I helped work on, we just installed an additional question. "Are you human? Yes/No". We would either change the question ("Are you a bot? Yes/No") or the default answers periodically.
As a Mac User, and a Realist, I feel a sudden urge to express my opinions bluntly, without remorse, smuggly and wearing a turtleneck, yet my opinions are not irrational, bolsterous claims. And the turtleneck? Machine washable.
Apple likes to control the hardware, that's no secret. In fact, I believe if Microsoft only had to design an OS for two or three active production models at any given time, Windows might be far more reliable than I find it to be.
Apple also likes to control the software. As does Microsoft. Both companies are, understandably, against the piracy of their operating systems. It's Microsoft's bread-and-butter, and the main feature pushing Apple's hardware.
Apple is reaching a very crucial stage, where the demand for their product is extending outside of their intended production area. They want to sell both the hardware and the software, and this $399 OpenMac would be an incredible loss in sales.
It could also be a loss in integrity. OS X has not been evaluated on the OpenMac's configuration by anyone within Apple (that we know of) and therefore the stability of the operating system may not be what is expected of OS X on the Apple-branded hardware.
And if OS X isn't as reliable on the OpenMac as it is on an Apple-branded system, where will the fingers point? I doubt very much they'll point at the OpenMac team.
The blame may very well be put on Apple. "You can't make your software work on every computer! You won't let me install it whever I want! You don't let me use any piece of hardware I want!"
Apple has never claimed the above hypothetical comments, and for some reason, that's all I ever see expected of the operating system.
Apple's response may be to act against the OpenMac team as quickly as possible (as it may have already) and sweep this under the rug. Apple can also point to the EULA and say "Not authorized".
Or, Apple could say "Install at your own risk" and simply not offer any support for the operating system when installed on a non-approved PC. However, I feel that would be the worst possible decision, as the tech-world media would not only have a field day with that news, but the judge handling the inevitable class-action lawsuit as well.
Apple is trying to provide as solid a product as possible. They limit themselves to specific hardware models, and it is expensive. These prices are hidden before purchase, they're readily available. I weighed my options and used several PCs before I could finally afford my first iBook.
When I went shopping for a new car, I wanted the BMW Z3 that was sitting on the lot. I found the monthly payments to be outrageously expensive, and settled on a Mercury Sable. I didn't complain to BMW that they should make their car more affordable to everyone, or that they should allow just any other manufacturer produce the exact same car without asking for BMW seal of approval. I bit the bullet and took the cheaper option, which provided me the exact same functionality, without the pleasing but unnecessary asthetics.
If Apple branches out onto additional hardware, honestly that's all the operating system will boil down to: asthetics. The stability is in the hardware restrictions and the lack of options for expansion. And the stability is implied through the sale of a new PowerMac just as much as through the retail sale of a boxed-edition of Leopard. And if OS X doesn't live up to the hype on any other PC, it's Apple that will receive the backlash, not anyone else.
I'm sure an argument could spawn for years, back and forth about why Apple's business practices and the OS X EULA are hypocritical, unethical and flat-out wrong, but what's the point in arguing that?
My only question is this: if someone is so dissatisfied with the way a product is packaged why would they want to buy it and support that company at all?