I don't think the problem was that the series wasn't rejuvenated, but rather that the writers didn't know what they wanted to do. What they did was inject more action and sex into the series while ineptly trying to grasp on to the more cerebral nature of Star Trek. And the result was uniformly crap to one extent or another; this goes for both the later series and most of the movies.
There's no reason why they couldn't keep the series more intellectual. Unfortunately, the fact is that it doesn't sell. Both networks and movie companies seem unwilling to commit to anything that doesn't have the broadest market appeal. Unfortunately, that's what set Star Trek apart. This shift makes the franchise more generic.
I'm still holding out hope for the new movie even though the trailers portray the movie as a pure action movie with the prerequisite romances for the ladies and steamy sex scenes for the men. And I get the impression that the movie is going to establish these absurd set pieces so that Kirk and friends can engage in macho extreme activities. That said, the special effects so far look excellent, which I think has been a weak point of many of the past Star Trek movies.
This has been my impression as well, especially from what I've seen in Asia. The US does tax companies, all companies more heavily than most countries in Europe. So that's one problem, but another, more profound problem I see is excessive regulation. All this excessive regulation makes it exceedingly difficult for upstart companies to actually be competitive and ensures that large corporations remain in control. Although, I don't think Europe is in that much better a situation than the US.
The same reason liberals continue voting for people like Chris Dodd and Dianne Feinstein.
Keep in mind that republicans lost pretty badly in the 2006 elections. The main reason Bush won in 2004 I believe was due specifically to the war in Iraq and Kerry wasn't particularly likable. But the loyalty I've seen seeing amongst liberals towards democrats is surprising.
By sexual identity issues I think the point is that the game has these characters who are supposed to be male but end up looking like girls. It's not that they're depicted as being conflicted about their gender, although they might be.
It is no uncommon to see japanese girls who do have boyish voices. As for the girly guys, I think it's really drawing on fashion trends in Japan where young guys do sometimes appear somewhat effeminate.
Given the kinds of activities these characters engage in they really should appear tougher and more masculine. That said, while I'd rather see more mature, masculine men, I do much prefer this stylized look over what I see in American RPGs. There's a simple reason why. Americans have this overwhelming desire to go for sheer realism. So we always end up with unattractive characters that look like crappy b-movie-grade actors at best and LARPers at worst.
Here I am being told my character is this fearless warrior and every time I look at this guy I see a pasty-faced programmer. So I'll take my chances with the prepubescent boy. At least there was a little more creativity involved in designing that guy, and this is coming from someone who finds most anime derivative and uninteresting.
In principle I think this is an awesome idea. Whether or not it works out in practice remains to be seen, especially with the way things are done in the US.
In Taiwan, just a few years ago, a high speed rail line was built from Taipei in the north to Kaohsiung in the south, nearly spanning the length of the island. It's done fairly well, almost meeting expectations. It's hurt the domestic airline industry somewhat mainly because the rail line only takes marginally longer to travel the entire distance; it takes a bit over 1 hour versus 45 minutes by plane.
The high speed rail line had a few advantage however. Nearly all of Taiwan's major cities run down the west side of the island where the land is flatter. It makes it easy to reach all the key population centers.
Secondly, unlike the US where Americans are used to having to drive long distances, Taiwan generally feel the 200+ distance is too long to drive. People do it all the time, but to them they might as well be driving from New York to California. And the cities are dense enough that it ends up being a hassle to drive around anyway. When I was in Taipei, for example, they had 2 or 3 cars for every parking spot. It's an exercise in frustration just finding a parking spot, let alone negotiating the dense, hectic traffic. The south is a bit better, but it's still a problem.
Third, many people already took buses or the existing, slower rail line, so the jump to high speed rail was a logical one. The question was if Taiwan, who generally are quite cheap, would be willing to pay a good deal more for a significantly reduced travel time. It turns out they are, but if I recall correctly the high speed rail company did lower rates at some point.
Construction was just beginning when I was living there between 2000 and 2002 and it was open to the public in 2007. The line itself runs just over 200 miles. The total cost was in excess of $15 billion. There's no way in hell we'd see a high speed rail line built that quickly and for that price in the United States.
Take the piece of garbage that passes for a high speed rail line in the northeast, the Acela. It runs on existing rail lines with slight upgrades and they still managed to finish it well behind schedule. The Wikipedia article claims it was a year late, but from my recollection of announcements at the time I'd say it was at least 2 or 3 years late. The Acela has to slow down at every single station it passes, so in my area it's barely going faster than traffic on the highway. All the trains on this line are consistently late, to the point that the scheduled times are more of an identification for the trains than an actual indication of when the trains will arrive. The best part is how every so often a train pulls down the power lines.
And I'm reminded of yet another issue, common courtesy. In Taiwan food isn't permitted on subways and most trains. And people respect those rules. In all the years of riding there I don't recall ever having seen graffiti more than a handful of times and very limited. I never had to worry about sitting in the mess someone left behind. Public bathrooms were always clean both because people weren't slobs but because they were also cleaned on a regular basis. If someone makes a significant mess someone will be by to clean it up in short order.
When is this ever the case in the US? People seem to have no respect for anything, like it's their duty to deface and vandalize. And imagine suggesting to any rider that they should wait 30 minutes, until they get off the train, before they eat. Instead they'll sit there slobbering over their food, making a mess and then have the audacity to leave the garbage sitting under the seat.
My point is that Americans turn public transportation into a miserable experience. Expect this money to be spend poorly and in the end still not provide the sort of experience that the European or Japanese high-speed rail lines provide. And just wait until every last town starts fighting for their own stop on the line. Or
If was I assured that the government was using my tax money efficiently and productively, I wouldn't have an issue paying them. However, the government uses our money neither wisely nor efficiently.
Here's a small example of how wasteful my city is. My city has a budged deficit like virtually ever level of our inept government all over the country. During a radio interview during the winter he said we were one snowfall away from declaring bankruptcy. It's the same song and dance year after year. Somehow they never set aside enough money to cover snow removal.
But here's the good bit, after he made that statement we had a fairly minor snow storm, amounting to maybe a couple of inches. And yet I distinctly recall plows running up and down the streets of my neighborhood to clear the small bit of snow lying at the edges of the street. The street itself was mostly clear of snow. This nonsense went on for two days.
In addition to that these idiots in the snowplows did their plows into the pavement. Every time one of the trucks goes by the rumbling is intense from these plows and sparks are flying. So what's the end result? Sometime this summer crews will start patching all the potholes. And the stretches where the streets are really torn up they'll end up repaving everything, and some of these streets have been paved within the last 10 years.
But then they complain that they have no money. And they can't cut spending even if they wanted because every last department and union refuses to make cuts. The head of the board of education, who earns nearly $200,000 a year for not doing much of anything refused to forgo a raise because she needed it to cover cost of living increases.
And god forbid anyone propose cutting taxes in certain areas, like education. Nevermind that my city spends, on average, significantly more per child than any other country on Earth and I'd say that the quality of education is crap in comparison to what I've seen overseas. There are some good people out there, but money is squandered carelessly and apparently a lot of this money goes to the fat cats running the system.
So what's the solution? Like a bad welfare case or a drug addict the government resorts to squeezing a little more money out of people. Property tax is already ridiculously high in my city and we're looking at it going even higher this summer.
With utilities or any company I have the ability to dispute charges. I can moderate usage, or if I'm unhappy with a provider I can cut service. What the hell can I do with the government. Nothing. The buck stops there. I don't pay and I go to jail. And good luck trying to dispute anything.
What's really bothering me is this blind faith I see in the government nowadays. Like anyone who questions the government is doing something wrong; just look at the media's response to those tax rallies yesterday. And then there's the frustrating nonsense about how we need to punish the wealthy. More like punishing success.
And I love how tax rebates are portrayed as gifts from the government. It's my money, first of all. And secondly, this is simply a nice way to guarantee that these "tax cuts" are temporary. And third, this way they can give handouts to people who haven't even had to pay taxes, but do already enjoy the benefits of our welfare system. I'm all for putting money towards educating people out of poverty and ignorance, but I am completely opposed to handouts. Time and time again it's proven to be a failure, remember those FEMA debit cards?
And the problem isn't only the obvious taxation on income. It's all the other fees the government slips in there to screw us out of our hard-earned money. Like this damn internet taxation. It's a nice way of spreading out our tax burden so that we don't notice how bad it actually is. Sometimes I wonder if what we pay to the government doesn't already rival what Europeans pay.
That's how many, if not most countries do it. And I've wondered why we shouldn't do it here. But then I came to one conclusion, this way we know how much we're being taxed and it's immediately obviously when taxes go up.
With the tax is embedded in the price it's not immediately obvious where the increase is coming from, like we see in gasoline. Many states have taken advantage of people having gotten used to high prices to try to raise gasoline tax.
Having lived in a noisy, dense city in Asia I've found I prefer that environment over where I live now. But I realized there is a distinction. In the city there was a constant din of background noise so it was rare for individual sounds to really stand out.
On the other hand, for years I lived in more of a semi-urban environment, I guess the best way to describe it is a border area between quieter suburbs and a busier, lower-income area. The noise was annoying as hell because it would be fairly quiet much of the time but then some inconsiderate ass would come along with a booming car sound system or start honking the horn at 3am because they're too lazy to get out of the car and ring a door bell.
I live a few miles from that area. It's not quite like nicer, more rural suburbs but it definitely is much quieter than where I used to live. However, now any sound punctuates the silence far more dramatically and I have the misfortune of having college students as neighbors who like to come and go at 3am.
Needless to say I am very sensitive to sound, and find myself longing for the constant din of a big city or the complete silence of the woods. One interesting I observed whenever I'd leave the country where I lived was how oppressive the silence and lack of movement seemed. I could feel it having a depressing affect on me until it subsided about a week or two later. I don't think I felt sensory overload going the other way, but every so often I was struck by how active things were and how overwhelming they could be.
I suppose there were problems with that kind of life. But I found myself feeling far more inspired there in Asia than I do here. There was a lot to see, a lot going on and what I felt like attempts at creativity everywhere. A lot of it failed, but there was a lot less of the bland templates so prevalent in the US. I'm convinced if someone blind-folded you and dropped you in front of a shopping center virtually anywhere in the US you'd be hard-pressed to know where you were. But that starts getting into a whole other subject.
I do find myself more depressed here and have regretted moving back. But I'm not sure how much of it is due to actually living here and how much is for more personal reasons.
No... The way you protest is by having some principles and acquiring this entertainment illegally or otherwise. All you're doing is showing that there is demand for this content. Downloading content illegally is telling the entertainment industry that all they need to do is keep working towards more stringent DRM.
All they need to do is make it so difficult to find and use illegally obtained content that most people will just give in and start paying for it.
Being principled means being able to sacrifice your entertainment needs to make a message. If people want to make a statement they need to be more vocal. They need to set up protest sites, not download content illegally. They need to organize demonstrations.
What does anyone expect from a bloated government bureaucracy that seems to exist for no other reason to protect it's own power.
Conservatives and liberals are both happily sacrificing liberty for security, the only difference being their motivations for doing so. Conservatives generally have a fear of ambiguous foreign threats. Liberals want to be sheltered from the difficulties of life. Both lead to the same end result which is a massive state that regulates every aspect of our lives.
This is not to say there aren't legitimate concerns on both sides of the aisle, because each side is too quick to dismiss the concerns the other side has. Virtually every issue has been so utterly politicized that there's little room for rational discussion. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't intentional so that everyone is weakened by fighting amongst themselves and thus distracted from the real threat. Otherwise how is it that people keep re-electing the same old garbage into office over and over again?
I'm not going to waste time trying to make a case for labor unions here, because if you don't easily see how important they are to us, then you're too stupid for me to talk to.
That fact that you refuse to listen to arguments why unions can be a problem shows that perhaps you are too stupid for someone to bother arguing with.
In 2007 Germany exported 11.4% more than China, not 3 times more so I'm not sure where you got that claim. That is impressive, nonetheless, I'll grant you that. I fail to see, however, how this has anything to do with unions.
Additionally, you're seriously misguided about the quality of American cars. You're either stuck in the past, living in the 70s and early 80s when American cars were crap, or you merely eat up whatever the media feeds you.
I realize that it is the latest fad to bash the American automotive industry. But the fact is that they do produce very good cars. Chrysler, not so much, but GM and especially Ford have great vehicles. They've certainly made poor decisions, and continue to do so. They invested too heavily in SUVs, they react too late to consumer demand, and there are other problems. Unions haven't caused them, but they have crippled the automotive industry in a way that makes them inflexible.
One good example is how catering to union demands turned the Ford GT into an unreliable mess. And explain to me how forcing factories to remain open, regardless of demand, merely to appease the unions doesn't hurt these companies?
Anyway, visiting Europe gives you no insight whatsoever into what European cars are like outside the fact that they're all small. Italian cars are a joke because of how unreliable they are. The french cars are better, but still not great. Then we have the Germans, which certainly much better, but not very good either. The safety for most of those econo-boxes is also quite lacking. Having most of my family being European gives me a lot of insight into what vehicles are actually like.
One thing I'll grant you is that Europeans tend to make great looking cars and the Germans especially tend to be very thoughtful about how the driver interfaces with the car. But reliability is absolutely a weak point. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves. And I do have a german car, so I should know.
As for the Japanese, you've got Honda and Toyota who's legitimate reputation for reliability have created this illusion that all Japanese cars are equally reliable. Mitsubishi is pretty bad, Subaru is okay, and Nissans are known for inconsistent reliability as well. Toyota is starting to have problems as they slowly turn into the next GM.
It was frustrating as hell to have to defend my desire to vote for a third party when people kept arguing that I was wasting it by not voting for the two ruling parties. So apparently I'm throwing my vote away if I vote my conscience.
Having spent time in Asia I've come to find that Americans wouldn't recognize a free market if it bit them on the ass. And yet they rant and rant that capitalism is screwing us. No, improper regulation is. All this regulation has stifled competition and made it exceedingly difficult for anyone new to enter the market and be competitive.
These issues could be easily addressed, but with the government heading towards even more regulation things are only going to get worse.
Maybe 99% of the time there's no effect whatsoever on the airplane. The problem is that potential 1% that could cause a problem. Other than a concern for the safety of passengers I'm sure airlines and aircraft manufacturers don't want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit because their wi-fi systems weren't thoroughly tested and the plane adequately secure from interference.
Even with likely markups, I'm sure there's a good reason why installing such systems on these planes is so expensive. Things aren't always as simple as people love to imagine they are.
Having worked in the graphic design industry for at least 10 years now I have to point out that you're quite mistaken about the state of the industry.
I happened to enter the industry after computers were fully embraced by the industry but just as the internet was starting to take off. What I've found is that the perception towards graphic design has changed, but the reality of the work itself has not.
Because people have access to desktop publishing applications there has a tendency for design to be trivialized. It's all well and good for simplistic newsletters, but what I've often encountered is that once these people start trying to put something together they find themselves overwhelmed. Design wasn't about having the mechanical skills to produce a layout; it's about working with a variety of resources and using creativity, improvisation and strategy to produce work that meets particular requirements. It's common to have people look at design and claim they could do it themselves. But try doing so without copying.
As for the nature of freelancing in design, you'd be shocked by how many design companies exist out there. If anything, I think the market is over-saturated, but the fact is that the work is there. There aren't a lot of freelancers in this profession not because of a particular challenge facing the industry. There are so many of them out there because it's so competitive a market. And a lot of design companies have adopted the approach of primarily hiring freelancers because it's cost effective. It's because design has been commoditized. A lot of the same business idiots who keep outsourcing work think they can get everything on the cheap. They'd outsource design if they could, but it's almost impossible to get someone overseas to produce the kind of design work companies here need.
This brings me back to journalism and this attitude that anyone can produce this work and be good at it. There's this talk about how blogging is changing things. It is, but is it doing so in a good way? Nearly all blogs are little more than a news aggregate. All they provide in the way of content is commenting and maybe some editorializing.
This brings me to another issue. At least traditional news agencies have the pretense of being unbiased. Blogs are almost always dripping with bias and are generally unfriendly to dissenting views. Slashdot's format is better than most, but even here certain viewpoints have a tendency to be modded down. I have no problem with this, whatsoever, if it's clear the blog is more of a personal editorial. But I do have a problem when they try to pass themselves off as being impartial.
Another problem is that people want everything spoon-fed in bite-sized doses. How many people actually read full articles and don't just read sensationalist headlines and maybe skim over the summary. Blogs encourage this model.
Well, I could go on with the problems I see. And despite this I do think that the internet has real value and will probably bring about positive change. The problems I describe are probably symptoms of American media in general, but from what I've seeing the web isn't really helping.
There have been studies that claim increases levels of aggression amongst those who play violent games. I'd say that's fairly objective, regardless of how the sensationalist media decides to spin the story.
But what's the first thing that is mentioned when a story like that is posted here? It even gets a cute tag: correlation is not causation. I'm not suggesting those studies are necessarily accurate or not, just pointing out how selective people can be about believing only what conforms to their own beliefs.
But whenever a story is posted where something positive is said about games it is embraced.
In this case, whoever posted this story here decided to do the sensationalizing because the original article stages action games, not violent.
And the study does make sense. Players have to be able to pick out rapid movements, and especially with current games and their shabby sense of design, pick them out in drab, monochromatic and dark environments.
That one was unreal; it really conveyed the power of those explosives more effectively than any other explosion I've seen on the show. It's definitely my favorite.
If this is valid, I'd like to know what is the cause. Is it a physiological degradation or an psychological one?
This is wild speculation, but people seem to remain fairly active before their 30s but there seems to be this crossover point where people tend to fall into a rut and tend to be resigned to their lives at that current state. From observing family, friends and myself this seems to be the case. Could that variety help provide inspiration and the sort of motivation that help people continue to grow?
That said, I think that experience far outweighs anything else. I find myself solving problems and handling issues with far more easy and speed than at any time in the past. Work that I labored over in college for hours, if not days, I could now be done with within 30 minutes.
This sort of thing certainly doesn't make it easier for job security. The last thing companies need is yet another excuse to dump older, more expensive employees.
You can try to make the playing field as level as possible, but eventually someone will find a way to give themselves an advantage.
Why shouldn't a player be awarded for their superior skills? Anyone who wants to be as good as that player is welcome to practice and do all the research they can to improve themselves.
I get my ass handed to me fairly consistently in Street Fighter 4. I expect that will probably always be the case, because I don't have the time or inclination to get good at the game. And sometimes you need to accept that you're not going to excel at certain things. Street Fighter 4 shouldn't have to accommodate me because of my poor skills.
I don't have the time to devote to an MMO, but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be reap the fruits of spending their entire life in the game. I never liked the attitude that some people have that they should have access to everything in the game, regardless of how little play. These people knew what they were getting into when they bought the game. If they don't want to commit to prolonged gameplay sessions they shouldn't be playing MMOs.
I find games like Super Mario Kart intensely frustrating specifically because someone can come from behind merely because they've picked up some random powerup. It's especially in the newer versions of the game.
When skill or experience doesn't factor much into a game what's the point of playing? At that point it's a toy, not a game. Like Noby Noby Boy, a nice toy, but not much more than that. People who find themselves challenged by other games might find themselves more comfortable playing something like that.
I honestly don't think these shows are as good as people like to think they are. But I think the reason may be due to getting more value for the advertising dollar.
I recall years ago being told about how reasonably popular shows are dropped because they're not catering to the most profitable segment of the population. The commercials being run during these shows probably aren't resonating with their core viewer. And these viewers are probably less likely to be motivated by those commercials to buy those products.
So instead the network goes for programs like American Idol and other crap that caters to that demographic. They're almost certainly the most impressionable segment of the tv viewing crowd.
Of course this is generally speculation, but given how absolutely everything on television, including documentaries of all things, is being dumbed down I tend to think it's true.
The US government has and still does invest in big projects. The growing distinction is that the US government is growing increasingly burdened with having spent money in many other areas, one of the biggest being social programs. Additionally, the US has to deal with issues of all sorts, one of the biggest being environmental concerns. Look at all the environmental impact studies American companies have to engage in before they can even start working. And this is just one of many obstacles.
The advantage that the US has is that not only is government funding going towards these projects, but companies are investing themselves. The burden is shared. Of course, China does enjoy some of this as well.
And this just goes to show that all the utopian idealism in the world isn't going to take you very far. The US government can talk all they want about not militarizing space but the fact is that someone else is going to do it anyway.
China certainly is very ambitious, but the US is still light years ahead in terms of experience and expertise. Although, I'm sure outsourcing is helping to shrink that advantage.
I bet the same thing could have been said about the Prius during it's development phase. GM could always offer the Volt for lease like the Honda FCX, another car probably even more expensive to be economically feasible at this time, not to mention that hydrogen stations are few and far between.
GM has made tons of stupid mistakes, and frankly they deserve to be in the situation their in for it. On the other hand, the Volt is actually ingenious and I believe a more logical application of a hybrid powertrain than anything else currently on the road. I think it's cool that, like in diesel trains, the gasoline engine generates the electricity which powers the electric motor which in turn motivates the vehicle.
And for a change, I think it looks nicer than either the Prius or the new Insight. Hopefully, GM will be in business long enough for the Volt to see production. I do acknowledge that the risk in this car being too expensive is that enough people won't be able to buy for it to help GM in any meaningful way.
The problem in the US is that even when there is "no" regulation things still are regulated in a way that cripples competition. There is obviously something wrong in this country making it exceedingly difficult for new companies to enter the market and next to impossible for one to start from the ground up.
Why is it that in Asia there are literally dozens of internet providers of all types? These companies all fighting for consumer dollars ensures cheap prices and less of an opportunity for abuse. I can't say I always always impressed with the quality of service out there. I switched from cable to DSL because cable was such complete and utter crap. But, what was important is that it was cheap and I had plenty of competitors to choose from.
The US market seems to be one where only the biggest companies can afford to survive. And who's fault is this? The government, thanks to inappropriate and excessive regulation and heavy taxes. The problem isn't just how the government does or does not regulate the internet itself but how they regulate every other aspect of business.
Maybe the government should examine what put us in this situation rather than trying to cram yet another bit of regulation that will just cause further problems.
But then, we have a government that seems to make decisions based on ideology and not what could be truly best for the nation. And more troubling, they seem intent on securing their own power base.
Obviously you know nothing about Taiwan. This isn't China we're talking about. They do have nationalized health care, although they are plagued with the same problems such programs face in Europe everywhere else. They are required to pay some level of compensation for overtime, but it isn't extravagant. They do have guidelines for worker safety and labor laws are fairly stringent. Not quite to the extreme of the US, but it is moving in that direction.
Taiwan does have lower slightly lower corporate taxes than the US and last year I know the proposal was made to lower by 5% I believe, but I don't know if it ever went through. The US could easily address this situation, but the Obama administration seems intent on doing the opposite.
They do have unions in Taiwan although I'm not aware of one for the semiconductor industry; unions aren't necessarily a good thing anyway. I do know from personal experience that jobs in the semiconductor industry, everything from engineering on down to manufacturing, are in high demand. They pay quite well.
Wages certainly are lower in Taiwan than the US, by a good bit, but they are also significantly higher than in China. The key distinction is that quality is guaranteed and the companies are more trustworthy. It's very unlikely a Taiwanese company is going to go behind your back rip off your designs.
Companies outsource to Taiwan or Korea when they don't want quality close to what could be gotten out of Japan but without paying the excessive cost. Companies go to China when they want maximum savings even at the expense of quality.
That said, nowadays even Taiwan, Japan and Korea are outsourcing some of their manufacturing to China because even for them it's not as cost-effective as they'd like. The problem is that many people still lump Taiwan together with China so not only are they incapable of competing on price, but they're stuck with the perception of making cheap knockoffs.
Of course, the Taiwanese government bureaucracy is at fault for doing a piss poor job of marketing their own country in every way. And Taiwanese companies are a bit too reluctant to give up OEM manufacturing. They should be building their own brands on the level Korea has done over the last decade or so. Of course, Korean companies have had heavy government backing whereas Taiwanese companies have generally been left to fend for themselves.
Americans seem to think that by hiring a blogger they're somehow displaying some level of openness. The problem is that Americans are looking at this from a Western mindset where people like to believe, or pretend to be, anti-establishment.
Chinese, in general, are very pro government on a level most Americans cant even fathom. I've encountered many Chinese who've been here in the US for years who manage to remain surprisingly supportive of China.
So this doesn't really mean much at all. It's probably just an attempt by the government to show that their hip and connecting with the people.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the problem was that the series wasn't rejuvenated, but rather that the writers didn't know what they wanted to do. What they did was inject more action and sex into the series while ineptly trying to grasp on to the more cerebral nature of Star Trek. And the result was uniformly crap to one extent or another; this goes for both the later series and most of the movies.
There's no reason why they couldn't keep the series more intellectual. Unfortunately, the fact is that it doesn't sell. Both networks and movie companies seem unwilling to commit to anything that doesn't have the broadest market appeal. Unfortunately, that's what set Star Trek apart. This shift makes the franchise more generic.
I'm still holding out hope for the new movie even though the trailers portray the movie as a pure action movie with the prerequisite romances for the ladies and steamy sex scenes for the men. And I get the impression that the movie is going to establish these absurd set pieces so that Kirk and friends can engage in macho extreme activities. That said, the special effects so far look excellent, which I think has been a weak point of many of the past Star Trek movies.
This has been my impression as well, especially from what I've seen in Asia. The US does tax companies, all companies more heavily than most countries in Europe. So that's one problem, but another, more profound problem I see is excessive regulation. All this excessive regulation makes it exceedingly difficult for upstart companies to actually be competitive and ensures that large corporations remain in control. Although, I don't think Europe is in that much better a situation than the US.
The same reason liberals continue voting for people like Chris Dodd and Dianne Feinstein.
Keep in mind that republicans lost pretty badly in the 2006 elections. The main reason Bush won in 2004 I believe was due specifically to the war in Iraq and Kerry wasn't particularly likable. But the loyalty I've seen seeing amongst liberals towards democrats is surprising.
By sexual identity issues I think the point is that the game has these characters who are supposed to be male but end up looking like girls. It's not that they're depicted as being conflicted about their gender, although they might be.
It is no uncommon to see japanese girls who do have boyish voices. As for the girly guys, I think it's really drawing on fashion trends in Japan where young guys do sometimes appear somewhat effeminate.
Given the kinds of activities these characters engage in they really should appear tougher and more masculine. That said, while I'd rather see more mature, masculine men, I do much prefer this stylized look over what I see in American RPGs. There's a simple reason why. Americans have this overwhelming desire to go for sheer realism. So we always end up with unattractive characters that look like crappy b-movie-grade actors at best and LARPers at worst.
Here I am being told my character is this fearless warrior and every time I look at this guy I see a pasty-faced programmer. So I'll take my chances with the prepubescent boy. At least there was a little more creativity involved in designing that guy, and this is coming from someone who finds most anime derivative and uninteresting.
In principle I think this is an awesome idea. Whether or not it works out in practice remains to be seen, especially with the way things are done in the US.
In Taiwan, just a few years ago, a high speed rail line was built from Taipei in the north to Kaohsiung in the south, nearly spanning the length of the island. It's done fairly well, almost meeting expectations. It's hurt the domestic airline industry somewhat mainly because the rail line only takes marginally longer to travel the entire distance; it takes a bit over 1 hour versus 45 minutes by plane.
The high speed rail line had a few advantage however. Nearly all of Taiwan's major cities run down the west side of the island where the land is flatter. It makes it easy to reach all the key population centers.
Secondly, unlike the US where Americans are used to having to drive long distances, Taiwan generally feel the 200+ distance is too long to drive. People do it all the time, but to them they might as well be driving from New York to California. And the cities are dense enough that it ends up being a hassle to drive around anyway. When I was in Taipei, for example, they had 2 or 3 cars for every parking spot. It's an exercise in frustration just finding a parking spot, let alone negotiating the dense, hectic traffic. The south is a bit better, but it's still a problem.
Third, many people already took buses or the existing, slower rail line, so the jump to high speed rail was a logical one. The question was if Taiwan, who generally are quite cheap, would be willing to pay a good deal more for a significantly reduced travel time. It turns out they are, but if I recall correctly the high speed rail company did lower rates at some point.
Construction was just beginning when I was living there between 2000 and 2002 and it was open to the public in 2007. The line itself runs just over 200 miles. The total cost was in excess of $15 billion. There's no way in hell we'd see a high speed rail line built that quickly and for that price in the United States.
Take the piece of garbage that passes for a high speed rail line in the northeast, the Acela. It runs on existing rail lines with slight upgrades and they still managed to finish it well behind schedule. The Wikipedia article claims it was a year late, but from my recollection of announcements at the time I'd say it was at least 2 or 3 years late. The Acela has to slow down at every single station it passes, so in my area it's barely going faster than traffic on the highway. All the trains on this line are consistently late, to the point that the scheduled times are more of an identification for the trains than an actual indication of when the trains will arrive. The best part is how every so often a train pulls down the power lines.
And I'm reminded of yet another issue, common courtesy. In Taiwan food isn't permitted on subways and most trains. And people respect those rules. In all the years of riding there I don't recall ever having seen graffiti more than a handful of times and very limited. I never had to worry about sitting in the mess someone left behind. Public bathrooms were always clean both because people weren't slobs but because they were also cleaned on a regular basis. If someone makes a significant mess someone will be by to clean it up in short order.
When is this ever the case in the US? People seem to have no respect for anything, like it's their duty to deface and vandalize. And imagine suggesting to any rider that they should wait 30 minutes, until they get off the train, before they eat. Instead they'll sit there slobbering over their food, making a mess and then have the audacity to leave the garbage sitting under the seat.
My point is that Americans turn public transportation into a miserable experience. Expect this money to be spend poorly and in the end still not provide the sort of experience that the European or Japanese high-speed rail lines provide. And just wait until every last town starts fighting for their own stop on the line. Or
If was I assured that the government was using my tax money efficiently and productively, I wouldn't have an issue paying them. However, the government uses our money neither wisely nor efficiently.
Here's a small example of how wasteful my city is. My city has a budged deficit like virtually ever level of our inept government all over the country. During a radio interview during the winter he said we were one snowfall away from declaring bankruptcy. It's the same song and dance year after year. Somehow they never set aside enough money to cover snow removal.
But here's the good bit, after he made that statement we had a fairly minor snow storm, amounting to maybe a couple of inches. And yet I distinctly recall plows running up and down the streets of my neighborhood to clear the small bit of snow lying at the edges of the street. The street itself was mostly clear of snow. This nonsense went on for two days.
In addition to that these idiots in the snowplows did their plows into the pavement. Every time one of the trucks goes by the rumbling is intense from these plows and sparks are flying. So what's the end result? Sometime this summer crews will start patching all the potholes. And the stretches where the streets are really torn up they'll end up repaving everything, and some of these streets have been paved within the last 10 years.
But then they complain that they have no money. And they can't cut spending even if they wanted because every last department and union refuses to make cuts. The head of the board of education, who earns nearly $200,000 a year for not doing much of anything refused to forgo a raise because she needed it to cover cost of living increases.
And god forbid anyone propose cutting taxes in certain areas, like education. Nevermind that my city spends, on average, significantly more per child than any other country on Earth and I'd say that the quality of education is crap in comparison to what I've seen overseas. There are some good people out there, but money is squandered carelessly and apparently a lot of this money goes to the fat cats running the system.
So what's the solution? Like a bad welfare case or a drug addict the government resorts to squeezing a little more money out of people. Property tax is already ridiculously high in my city and we're looking at it going even higher this summer.
With utilities or any company I have the ability to dispute charges. I can moderate usage, or if I'm unhappy with a provider I can cut service. What the hell can I do with the government. Nothing. The buck stops there. I don't pay and I go to jail. And good luck trying to dispute anything.
What's really bothering me is this blind faith I see in the government nowadays. Like anyone who questions the government is doing something wrong; just look at the media's response to those tax rallies yesterday. And then there's the frustrating nonsense about how we need to punish the wealthy. More like punishing success.
And I love how tax rebates are portrayed as gifts from the government. It's my money, first of all. And secondly, this is simply a nice way to guarantee that these "tax cuts" are temporary. And third, this way they can give handouts to people who haven't even had to pay taxes, but do already enjoy the benefits of our welfare system. I'm all for putting money towards educating people out of poverty and ignorance, but I am completely opposed to handouts. Time and time again it's proven to be a failure, remember those FEMA debit cards?
And the problem isn't only the obvious taxation on income. It's all the other fees the government slips in there to screw us out of our hard-earned money. Like this damn internet taxation. It's a nice way of spreading out our tax burden so that we don't notice how bad it actually is. Sometimes I wonder if what we pay to the government doesn't already rival what Europeans pay.
That's how many, if not most countries do it. And I've wondered why we shouldn't do it here. But then I came to one conclusion, this way we know how much we're being taxed and it's immediately obviously when taxes go up.
With the tax is embedded in the price it's not immediately obvious where the increase is coming from, like we see in gasoline. Many states have taken advantage of people having gotten used to high prices to try to raise gasoline tax.
Having lived in a noisy, dense city in Asia I've found I prefer that environment over where I live now. But I realized there is a distinction. In the city there was a constant din of background noise so it was rare for individual sounds to really stand out.
On the other hand, for years I lived in more of a semi-urban environment, I guess the best way to describe it is a border area between quieter suburbs and a busier, lower-income area. The noise was annoying as hell because it would be fairly quiet much of the time but then some inconsiderate ass would come along with a booming car sound system or start honking the horn at 3am because they're too lazy to get out of the car and ring a door bell.
I live a few miles from that area. It's not quite like nicer, more rural suburbs but it definitely is much quieter than where I used to live. However, now any sound punctuates the silence far more dramatically and I have the misfortune of having college students as neighbors who like to come and go at 3am.
Needless to say I am very sensitive to sound, and find myself longing for the constant din of a big city or the complete silence of the woods. One interesting I observed whenever I'd leave the country where I lived was how oppressive the silence and lack of movement seemed. I could feel it having a depressing affect on me until it subsided about a week or two later. I don't think I felt sensory overload going the other way, but every so often I was struck by how active things were and how overwhelming they could be.
I suppose there were problems with that kind of life. But I found myself feeling far more inspired there in Asia than I do here. There was a lot to see, a lot going on and what I felt like attempts at creativity everywhere. A lot of it failed, but there was a lot less of the bland templates so prevalent in the US. I'm convinced if someone blind-folded you and dropped you in front of a shopping center virtually anywhere in the US you'd be hard-pressed to know where you were. But that starts getting into a whole other subject.
I do find myself more depressed here and have regretted moving back. But I'm not sure how much of it is due to actually living here and how much is for more personal reasons.
No... The way you protest is by having some principles and acquiring this entertainment illegally or otherwise. All you're doing is showing that there is demand for this content. Downloading content illegally is telling the entertainment industry that all they need to do is keep working towards more stringent DRM.
All they need to do is make it so difficult to find and use illegally obtained content that most people will just give in and start paying for it.
Being principled means being able to sacrifice your entertainment needs to make a message. If people want to make a statement they need to be more vocal. They need to set up protest sites, not download content illegally. They need to organize demonstrations.
Otherwise you're part of the problem.
What does anyone expect from a bloated government bureaucracy that seems to exist for no other reason to protect it's own power.
Conservatives and liberals are both happily sacrificing liberty for security, the only difference being their motivations for doing so. Conservatives generally have a fear of ambiguous foreign threats. Liberals want to be sheltered from the difficulties of life. Both lead to the same end result which is a massive state that regulates every aspect of our lives.
This is not to say there aren't legitimate concerns on both sides of the aisle, because each side is too quick to dismiss the concerns the other side has. Virtually every issue has been so utterly politicized that there's little room for rational discussion. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't intentional so that everyone is weakened by fighting amongst themselves and thus distracted from the real threat. Otherwise how is it that people keep re-electing the same old garbage into office over and over again?
That fact that you refuse to listen to arguments why unions can be a problem shows that perhaps you are too stupid for someone to bother arguing with.
In 2007 Germany exported 11.4% more than China, not 3 times more so I'm not sure where you got that claim. That is impressive, nonetheless, I'll grant you that. I fail to see, however, how this has anything to do with unions.
Additionally, you're seriously misguided about the quality of American cars. You're either stuck in the past, living in the 70s and early 80s when American cars were crap, or you merely eat up whatever the media feeds you.
I realize that it is the latest fad to bash the American automotive industry. But the fact is that they do produce very good cars. Chrysler, not so much, but GM and especially Ford have great vehicles. They've certainly made poor decisions, and continue to do so. They invested too heavily in SUVs, they react too late to consumer demand, and there are other problems. Unions haven't caused them, but they have crippled the automotive industry in a way that makes them inflexible.
One good example is how catering to union demands turned the Ford GT into an unreliable mess. And explain to me how forcing factories to remain open, regardless of demand, merely to appease the unions doesn't hurt these companies?
Anyway, visiting Europe gives you no insight whatsoever into what European cars are like outside the fact that they're all small. Italian cars are a joke because of how unreliable they are. The french cars are better, but still not great. Then we have the Germans, which certainly much better, but not very good either. The safety for most of those econo-boxes is also quite lacking. Having most of my family being European gives me a lot of insight into what vehicles are actually like.
One thing I'll grant you is that Europeans tend to make great looking cars and the Germans especially tend to be very thoughtful about how the driver interfaces with the car. But reliability is absolutely a weak point. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves. And I do have a german car, so I should know.
As for the Japanese, you've got Honda and Toyota who's legitimate reputation for reliability have created this illusion that all Japanese cars are equally reliable. Mitsubishi is pretty bad, Subaru is okay, and Nissans are known for inconsistent reliability as well. Toyota is starting to have problems as they slowly turn into the next GM.
So spare us your biased, uninformed tirades.
It was frustrating as hell to have to defend my desire to vote for a third party when people kept arguing that I was wasting it by not voting for the two ruling parties. So apparently I'm throwing my vote away if I vote my conscience.
Having spent time in Asia I've come to find that Americans wouldn't recognize a free market if it bit them on the ass. And yet they rant and rant that capitalism is screwing us. No, improper regulation is. All this regulation has stifled competition and made it exceedingly difficult for anyone new to enter the market and be competitive.
These issues could be easily addressed, but with the government heading towards even more regulation things are only going to get worse.
Maybe 99% of the time there's no effect whatsoever on the airplane. The problem is that potential 1% that could cause a problem. Other than a concern for the safety of passengers I'm sure airlines and aircraft manufacturers don't want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit because their wi-fi systems weren't thoroughly tested and the plane adequately secure from interference.
Even with likely markups, I'm sure there's a good reason why installing such systems on these planes is so expensive. Things aren't always as simple as people love to imagine they are.
Having worked in the graphic design industry for at least 10 years now I have to point out that you're quite mistaken about the state of the industry.
I happened to enter the industry after computers were fully embraced by the industry but just as the internet was starting to take off. What I've found is that the perception towards graphic design has changed, but the reality of the work itself has not.
Because people have access to desktop publishing applications there has a tendency for design to be trivialized. It's all well and good for simplistic newsletters, but what I've often encountered is that once these people start trying to put something together they find themselves overwhelmed. Design wasn't about having the mechanical skills to produce a layout; it's about working with a variety of resources and using creativity, improvisation and strategy to produce work that meets particular requirements. It's common to have people look at design and claim they could do it themselves. But try doing so without copying.
As for the nature of freelancing in design, you'd be shocked by how many design companies exist out there. If anything, I think the market is over-saturated, but the fact is that the work is there. There aren't a lot of freelancers in this profession not because of a particular challenge facing the industry. There are so many of them out there because it's so competitive a market. And a lot of design companies have adopted the approach of primarily hiring freelancers because it's cost effective. It's because design has been commoditized. A lot of the same business idiots who keep outsourcing work think they can get everything on the cheap. They'd outsource design if they could, but it's almost impossible to get someone overseas to produce the kind of design work companies here need.
This brings me back to journalism and this attitude that anyone can produce this work and be good at it. There's this talk about how blogging is changing things. It is, but is it doing so in a good way? Nearly all blogs are little more than a news aggregate. All they provide in the way of content is commenting and maybe some editorializing.
This brings me to another issue. At least traditional news agencies have the pretense of being unbiased. Blogs are almost always dripping with bias and are generally unfriendly to dissenting views. Slashdot's format is better than most, but even here certain viewpoints have a tendency to be modded down. I have no problem with this, whatsoever, if it's clear the blog is more of a personal editorial. But I do have a problem when they try to pass themselves off as being impartial.
Another problem is that people want everything spoon-fed in bite-sized doses. How many people actually read full articles and don't just read sensationalist headlines and maybe skim over the summary. Blogs encourage this model.
Well, I could go on with the problems I see. And despite this I do think that the internet has real value and will probably bring about positive change. The problems I describe are probably symptoms of American media in general, but from what I've seeing the web isn't really helping.
Objective according to whom?
There have been studies that claim increases levels of aggression amongst those who play violent games. I'd say that's fairly objective, regardless of how the sensationalist media decides to spin the story.
But what's the first thing that is mentioned when a story like that is posted here? It even gets a cute tag: correlation is not causation. I'm not suggesting those studies are necessarily accurate or not, just pointing out how selective people can be about believing only what conforms to their own beliefs.
But whenever a story is posted where something positive is said about games it is embraced.
In this case, whoever posted this story here decided to do the sensationalizing because the original article stages action games, not violent.
And the study does make sense. Players have to be able to pick out rapid movements, and especially with current games and their shabby sense of design, pick them out in drab, monochromatic and dark environments.
That one was unreal; it really conveyed the power of those explosives more effectively than any other explosion I've seen on the show. It's definitely my favorite.
If this is valid, I'd like to know what is the cause. Is it a physiological degradation or an psychological one?
This is wild speculation, but people seem to remain fairly active before their 30s but there seems to be this crossover point where people tend to fall into a rut and tend to be resigned to their lives at that current state. From observing family, friends and myself this seems to be the case. Could that variety help provide inspiration and the sort of motivation that help people continue to grow?
That said, I think that experience far outweighs anything else. I find myself solving problems and handling issues with far more easy and speed than at any time in the past. Work that I labored over in college for hours, if not days, I could now be done with within 30 minutes.
This sort of thing certainly doesn't make it easier for job security. The last thing companies need is yet another excuse to dump older, more expensive employees.
You can try to make the playing field as level as possible, but eventually someone will find a way to give themselves an advantage.
Why shouldn't a player be awarded for their superior skills? Anyone who wants to be as good as that player is welcome to practice and do all the research they can to improve themselves.
I get my ass handed to me fairly consistently in Street Fighter 4. I expect that will probably always be the case, because I don't have the time or inclination to get good at the game. And sometimes you need to accept that you're not going to excel at certain things. Street Fighter 4 shouldn't have to accommodate me because of my poor skills.
I don't have the time to devote to an MMO, but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be reap the fruits of spending their entire life in the game. I never liked the attitude that some people have that they should have access to everything in the game, regardless of how little play. These people knew what they were getting into when they bought the game. If they don't want to commit to prolonged gameplay sessions they shouldn't be playing MMOs.
I find games like Super Mario Kart intensely frustrating specifically because someone can come from behind merely because they've picked up some random powerup. It's especially in the newer versions of the game.
When skill or experience doesn't factor much into a game what's the point of playing? At that point it's a toy, not a game. Like Noby Noby Boy, a nice toy, but not much more than that. People who find themselves challenged by other games might find themselves more comfortable playing something like that.
I honestly don't think these shows are as good as people like to think they are. But I think the reason may be due to getting more value for the advertising dollar.
I recall years ago being told about how reasonably popular shows are dropped because they're not catering to the most profitable segment of the population. The commercials being run during these shows probably aren't resonating with their core viewer. And these viewers are probably less likely to be motivated by those commercials to buy those products.
So instead the network goes for programs like American Idol and other crap that caters to that demographic. They're almost certainly the most impressionable segment of the tv viewing crowd.
Of course this is generally speculation, but given how absolutely everything on television, including documentaries of all things, is being dumbed down I tend to think it's true.
The US government has and still does invest in big projects. The growing distinction is that the US government is growing increasingly burdened with having spent money in many other areas, one of the biggest being social programs. Additionally, the US has to deal with issues of all sorts, one of the biggest being environmental concerns. Look at all the environmental impact studies American companies have to engage in before they can even start working. And this is just one of many obstacles.
The advantage that the US has is that not only is government funding going towards these projects, but companies are investing themselves. The burden is shared. Of course, China does enjoy some of this as well.
And this just goes to show that all the utopian idealism in the world isn't going to take you very far. The US government can talk all they want about not militarizing space but the fact is that someone else is going to do it anyway.
China certainly is very ambitious, but the US is still light years ahead in terms of experience and expertise. Although, I'm sure outsourcing is helping to shrink that advantage.
I bet the same thing could have been said about the Prius during it's development phase. GM could always offer the Volt for lease like the Honda FCX, another car probably even more expensive to be economically feasible at this time, not to mention that hydrogen stations are few and far between.
GM has made tons of stupid mistakes, and frankly they deserve to be in the situation their in for it. On the other hand, the Volt is actually ingenious and I believe a more logical application of a hybrid powertrain than anything else currently on the road. I think it's cool that, like in diesel trains, the gasoline engine generates the electricity which powers the electric motor which in turn motivates the vehicle.
And for a change, I think it looks nicer than either the Prius or the new Insight. Hopefully, GM will be in business long enough for the Volt to see production. I do acknowledge that the risk in this car being too expensive is that enough people won't be able to buy for it to help GM in any meaningful way.
The problem in the US is that even when there is "no" regulation things still are regulated in a way that cripples competition. There is obviously something wrong in this country making it exceedingly difficult for new companies to enter the market and next to impossible for one to start from the ground up.
Why is it that in Asia there are literally dozens of internet providers of all types? These companies all fighting for consumer dollars ensures cheap prices and less of an opportunity for abuse. I can't say I always always impressed with the quality of service out there. I switched from cable to DSL because cable was such complete and utter crap. But, what was important is that it was cheap and I had plenty of competitors to choose from.
The US market seems to be one where only the biggest companies can afford to survive. And who's fault is this? The government, thanks to inappropriate and excessive regulation and heavy taxes. The problem isn't just how the government does or does not regulate the internet itself but how they regulate every other aspect of business.
Maybe the government should examine what put us in this situation rather than trying to cram yet another bit of regulation that will just cause further problems.
But then, we have a government that seems to make decisions based on ideology and not what could be truly best for the nation. And more troubling, they seem intent on securing their own power base.
Obviously you know nothing about Taiwan. This isn't China we're talking about. They do have nationalized health care, although they are plagued with the same problems such programs face in Europe everywhere else. They are required to pay some level of compensation for overtime, but it isn't extravagant. They do have guidelines for worker safety and labor laws are fairly stringent. Not quite to the extreme of the US, but it is moving in that direction.
Taiwan does have lower slightly lower corporate taxes than the US and last year I know the proposal was made to lower by 5% I believe, but I don't know if it ever went through. The US could easily address this situation, but the Obama administration seems intent on doing the opposite.
They do have unions in Taiwan although I'm not aware of one for the semiconductor industry; unions aren't necessarily a good thing anyway. I do know from personal experience that jobs in the semiconductor industry, everything from engineering on down to manufacturing, are in high demand. They pay quite well.
Wages certainly are lower in Taiwan than the US, by a good bit, but they are also significantly higher than in China. The key distinction is that quality is guaranteed and the companies are more trustworthy. It's very unlikely a Taiwanese company is going to go behind your back rip off your designs.
Companies outsource to Taiwan or Korea when they don't want quality close to what could be gotten out of Japan but without paying the excessive cost. Companies go to China when they want maximum savings even at the expense of quality.
That said, nowadays even Taiwan, Japan and Korea are outsourcing some of their manufacturing to China because even for them it's not as cost-effective as they'd like. The problem is that many people still lump Taiwan together with China so not only are they incapable of competing on price, but they're stuck with the perception of making cheap knockoffs.
Of course, the Taiwanese government bureaucracy is at fault for doing a piss poor job of marketing their own country in every way. And Taiwanese companies are a bit too reluctant to give up OEM manufacturing. They should be building their own brands on the level Korea has done over the last decade or so. Of course, Korean companies have had heavy government backing whereas Taiwanese companies have generally been left to fend for themselves.
Americans seem to think that by hiring a blogger they're somehow displaying some level of openness. The problem is that Americans are looking at this from a Western mindset where people like to believe, or pretend to be, anti-establishment.
Chinese, in general, are very pro government on a level most Americans cant even fathom. I've encountered many Chinese who've been here in the US for years who manage to remain surprisingly supportive of China.
So this doesn't really mean much at all. It's probably just an attempt by the government to show that their hip and connecting with the people.