Seriously, can anyone name any smart move that the Sci-fi channel has ever made, with the notable exceptions of picking up MST3K and Battlestar Galactica?
I know it's hip to bash the big evil corporation. But, in all fairness, is there any practical way to do business in many of these countries and NOT be corrupt? I mean, these are countries where government officials and local heavies EXPECT bribes and payoffs.
Look, I loved Crue back in the 80's (who didn't?), but their albums and singles these days aren't exactly shattering sales records. I imagine that just about *ANY* new song added to Rock Band would sell better than any given new Crue single on iTunes, just because of the completists and those looking for ANY new content.
I mean, 47,000 downloads is great and all, but there was a time when a new Crue album would sell in the MILLIONS.
I'll sum it all up even more succinctly: If you're a greedy bastard who jumps on some trendy investment thinking it will make you an instant millionaire, you're probably about to get fucked (and deservedly so). Only the guys at the *top* of the pyramid scam make money, everyone else is just a sucker.
Am I the only one who thinks this looks a lot better than 99% of Dell's plain-jane (any color, as long as it's black and grey) standard models? Forget developing countries, I want one HERE.
Is it just me, or do some of those "tribesmen" look like they're wearing colonial Spanish armour? Looks like pictures taken from a movie set or as a joke to me.
I know this is blasphemy here on/., but frankly, I don't have that much faith in open source and don't think MS, by and large, has anything to worry about. With the noteable exception of Firefox, I've found almost all OSS to be buggy, poorly supported, laughably poorly documented, confusing, and haphazard. Even when OSS project show some potential, they inevitably fork over some bullshit tussle between developers. 90% of consumers would never put up with these shortcomings.
Just look at Linux as a prime example. Let's say Joe Sixpack or Joe Business wants to get the MS monkey off their backs and "go Linux." Well, the first thing they are going to find is that there is no "Linux" in the same sense that there is a "Windows." Linux is just a kernal (actually, it's different versions of a kernal, since not all distros use the same one). Choosing Linux means first having to choose from a confusing array of different distros, each with their own cheerleaders, strengths and weaknesses--and ALL much more poorly documented and supported than any version of Windows. And that's just the FIRST step. That doesn't even get into installation issues, driver support, etc.
With the exception of Firefox, I've never once seen a OSS program that I would compare to its commercial counterpart (again, with the notable exception of Firefox). One trip to just about any OSS website will usually make that clear. How many OSS webpages don't even EXPLAIN WHAT THE PRODUCT IS, much less document it, on their website? Seriously, MS has nothing to fear from software distributors whose websites consist entirely of lists of version bug fixes and forums.
Revision 3 should have just sued, and sued BIG. By discussing it so glibly, and in such detail, on their blog they're jeopardizing their case. A huge financial hit would hurt the RIAA's cronies a LOT more than a little negative publicity from a blogger.
John Stewart makes millions of $ per year. Even the most popular on of online distribution show hosts don't even make a TINY fraction of that. The average episode of the Daily Show probably costs upwards of $100,000 per episode to produce, 5 days a week. No show distributed on the internet has anything *close* to the kind of revenue it would need to support that. Even if he could charge for it on a per-episode basis (and everyone played nice and didn't just pirate the episodes), it wouldn't even come close.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single show on the internet that has production values that are remotely comparable to even a cheap cable production like The Daily Show. Most internet shows consist of a shitty set (if they even have a set), bad sound, and some dude's friend operating the one camera. There is a reason for that. The best I've ever seen are DLTV and the Totally Rad Show, both of which look like they involve a crew of MAYBE four people and are edited on somebody's laptop.
Stewart, Conan, and Colbert did their best work in years during the strike. They should have told their writers not to come back. Stewart, in particular, has been TERRIBLE since the writers came back. On most nights, the audience is all but groaning.
There are occasions where a divergent interpretation actually bests the original material. Kubrick's film "The Shining" was brilliant. King's book, by contrast, was mediocre at best. Almost all the classic elements that come to mind when people think of "The Shining" today were added by Kubrick (who the fuck thinks of Jack running around a bunch of topiary animals with a croquet mallet?!?)
I think the first Starship Troopers was one of Verhoeven's best films. But then again, I despise Heinlen and think that hack DESERVED to be parodied. Verhoeven just sized the material up for exactly what it was.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah "thee," how we miss you.
More like an unlimited supply of idiots.
Seriously, can anyone name any smart move that the Sci-fi channel has ever made, with the notable exceptions of picking up MST3K and Battlestar Galactica?
I know it's hip to bash the big evil corporation. But, in all fairness, is there any practical way to do business in many of these countries and NOT be corrupt? I mean, these are countries where government officials and local heavies EXPECT bribes and payoffs.
He's on his WAAAAAYYY...Just set him FREEEEE
They can have the umlaut when they can show me a single band member from a country that uses umlauts.
First one, then the other.
I mean, 47,000 downloads is great and all, but there was a time when a new Crue album would sell in the MILLIONS.
Wait a minute. Did I just say that out loud?
Obviously you don't read Business Week.
I'll sum it all up even more succinctly: If you're a greedy bastard who jumps on some trendy investment thinking it will make you an instant millionaire, you're probably about to get fucked (and deservedly so). Only the guys at the *top* of the pyramid scam make money, everyone else is just a sucker.
Am I the only one who thinks this looks a lot better than 99% of Dell's plain-jane (any color, as long as it's black and grey) standard models? Forget developing countries, I want one HERE.
Oops, here is Pic 2
Better versions are at CNN. Pic 1 and Pic 2
Is it just me, or do some of those "tribesmen" look like they're wearing colonial Spanish armour? Looks like pictures taken from a movie set or as a joke to me.
Without a Linux version, it's obviously the work of Satan.
Just look at Linux as a prime example. Let's say Joe Sixpack or Joe Business wants to get the MS monkey off their backs and "go Linux." Well, the first thing they are going to find is that there is no "Linux" in the same sense that there is a "Windows." Linux is just a kernal (actually, it's different versions of a kernal, since not all distros use the same one). Choosing Linux means first having to choose from a confusing array of different distros, each with their own cheerleaders, strengths and weaknesses--and ALL much more poorly documented and supported than any version of Windows. And that's just the FIRST step. That doesn't even get into installation issues, driver support, etc.
With the exception of Firefox, I've never once seen a OSS program that I would compare to its commercial counterpart (again, with the notable exception of Firefox). One trip to just about any OSS website will usually make that clear. How many OSS webpages don't even EXPLAIN WHAT THE PRODUCT IS, much less document it, on their website? Seriously, MS has nothing to fear from software distributors whose websites consist entirely of lists of version bug fixes and forums.
Revision 3 should have just sued, and sued BIG. By discussing it so glibly, and in such detail, on their blog they're jeopardizing their case. A huge financial hit would hurt the RIAA's cronies a LOT more than a little negative publicity from a blogger.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single show on the internet that has production values that are remotely comparable to even a cheap cable production like The Daily Show. Most internet shows consist of a shitty set (if they even have a set), bad sound, and some dude's friend operating the one camera. There is a reason for that. The best I've ever seen are DLTV and the Totally Rad Show, both of which look like they involve a crew of MAYBE four people and are edited on somebody's laptop.
Your math works under the assumption that every single person that watches would also buy it and that there is no overhead for bandwidth and hosting.
And may you be cursed in Hell to watching Verhoeven parodies of ALL of Heinlein's books.
Stewart, Conan, and Colbert did their best work in years during the strike. They should have told their writers not to come back. Stewart, in particular, has been TERRIBLE since the writers came back. On most nights, the audience is all but groaning.
The Heinlein fans are all just cheesed off that Verhoeven made fun of their hero.
There are occasions where a divergent interpretation actually bests the original material. Kubrick's film "The Shining" was brilliant. King's book, by contrast, was mediocre at best. Almost all the classic elements that come to mind when people think of "The Shining" today were added by Kubrick (who the fuck thinks of Jack running around a bunch of topiary animals with a croquet mallet?!?)
I think the first Starship Troopers was one of Verhoeven's best films. But then again, I despise Heinlen and think that hack DESERVED to be parodied. Verhoeven just sized the material up for exactly what it was.