If Apple's success is so heavily dependent on a single product I think they've got more important things to worry about.
Honestly, I think this is a problem with American companies and media. All they seem to care about is that one hit. They're desperate to come up with the one product that will ensure success, at least temporarily. Because then all too often they seem content to rest on their laurels or worse go to extreme lengths to prevent competition.
So what do we constantly hear from the media, nonsense about this-killer and that-killer, how a particular product is going to change everything and there apparently is little patience for methodical, evolving improvements.
The iPod didn't just fall out of Apple's collective ass. It really was the embodiment of Apple's design philosophy and corporate vision. It also helped that Apple actually had the resources to design the device, develop the software and actually have a direct hand in it's manufacture.
Contrast that with other companies who claim they want to develop something to compete with the iPod. In many cases, like Microsoft, they take an existing product, a Toshiba MP3 player, and customize it for their use. For that reason alone it will never be as well integrated as the iPod.
In many other cases companies will take existing products, particularly Chinese-made products, rebrand them, maybe modify the external design slightly, and resell them here. So the American consumer gets stuck with a subpar product. In the short-term the company earns some easy money but in the long-term they've hurt their brand.
There are many other issues here, but this is one of the bigger problems I see afflicting American companies. Many American companies don't actually make anything anymore. They've effectively dumping the engineering and manufacturing core of the business and have focused almost completely on marketing. Innovation seems to only exist within marketing departments. They're constantly hunting for new advertising gimmick to sucker people into buying more of the same.
Instead of taking the approach of focusing on quality at a premium they're still trying to compete on price. Then they wonder why they lose to the, usually foreign, competition. And when things go south they always blame everyone and everything but their own decision-making. Granted, I'm over-simplifying a bit, but I do think it's a big problem nonetheless.
I agree web design has become a horrendous mess. Unfortunately, it isn't going to get any better with companies trying to shove more advertising and content in our face.
Working in design I face this constantly. Clients predictably insist they want a clean, minimalist design then over the course of the project proceed to cram as much as they possibly can onto the page. And of course every last shred of content is so important that it needs to land above the cutoff for the browser window.
The problem is that nobody takes interface design seriously, particularly not on the web. Companies are already cheap enough as it is, but they're certainly not going to pay for the kind of consulting and guidance required to make a page function as it should. And designers certainly aren't helping things. Most design something with little thought other than because it looks good. They may know how to design something aesthetically pleasing and visually impressive but once they have to handle real content they're lost and the design falls apart.
But here's my impression whether or not the blind deserve more effort on the web, and it's probably considered insensitive by some: I say no. I don't mean that efforts shouldn't be made to aid the blind, I mean that they shouldn't be forced on us through legislation.
The internet is a very visual medium. That's a very basic fact. These people can't realistically expect that everyone else should have to accommodate their disability. If a company decides they want to be sensitive to the needs of the blind on their website, that's great. If other companies decide to develop software to assist the blind with browsing the internet, that's good too.
However, to force more accommmodation through lawsuits and legislation is just nonsense. And unfortunately, it's already happened.
I've been told that the glossy screens are appealing to companies because they make for a more eye-catching presentation in stores. They tend to make colors appear more vibrant; I'm not sure why, and I guess most people are impressed by shiny things.
I personally don't like them. I have one of the current iMacs at work with the glass screen. I happen to be sitting in a spot where reflection and clare is minimal, but even then I can see reflections of things around me in the screen.
I have matte LCD screens at home which I much prefer. Obviously those have no issue with glare. And if I were to get a laptop no way in hell would I get one with a glossy screen. Given that they might be used anywhere it's going to be inevitable that there will be issues with glare.
I don't see how a particular technology can be criticized based on today's limitations. It would be like someone in 1985 completely discrediting 3D because computers back then couldn't handle it. Why bother with 3D when 2D games provided a suitably entertaining experience.
While some of today's games certainly look impressive they've still got a long way to go because they can be deemed realistic. Actually, I find photo-realism to be bland. It's kind of like photo-realistic paintings. Certainly, the technique is extremely impressive, but ultimately, what's the point if the end result looks no different than a photograph?
I'll concede, however, that realism in gaming is a bit different. There is a big place for it in the future of gaming if for no other reason than to provide a holodeck-like experience.
That said, I don't think console and PC gaming is even on Pixar's level in terms of sophistication of graphics. They're very good, but they don't yet come close in terms of animation, detail, textures or lighting.
I don't know all the technical details of ray tracing, but to me I'd say the big advantage would be how it affects production. Current games require a considerable amount of work in order to reproduce all kinds of visual effects. With ray tracing a developer merely has to designate a surface as reflective or drop a light somewhere in the scene; the hardware handles all the math and everything comes out automatically looking right.
I think the inherent problem with that is that ISPs will almost certainly heavily overcharge the user even worse than they do now.
Doubtless they'd charge a flat rate, especially if they were to implement such a system now. People are used to being charged a flat rate so they aren't necessarily going to expect a change.
On top of that rate they will then charge for usage. But instead of charging a reasonable amount per Mb, or whatever metric they choose, they'll extort the user on the level mobile service providers do who charge 20 cents per message. I have no clue what a reasonable rate would be, but I'd venture to say it would be a fraction of a cent per Mb.
Otherwise I'd support such a model if they adopted the same approach as utilities like water, gas or electricity. The only fees charged are based on actual usage and although they raise rates more than I'd like at least they still have to justify those increases to the state.
Why does the headline claim that climate change is having an impact on the growing of barley when the very brief linked article makes no such claim. This climate scientist uses, "likely will", "might" and "will" quite liberally.
I find it impressive how the media has so effectively shifted the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". So now any time weather deviates from some arbitrary norm we're feeling the effects of climate change. And don't forget to add that it's man-made!
In fact, on NPR recently a NASA scientist stated that the Argo satellite has shown slight cooling over the past five years. Another thing is that scientists are starting to find that CO2 doesn't quite provide the positive feedback that causes a rise in temperature, instead it acts as a sort of damper. If I could find where I read that I'd link it here but inevitably any search on global warming and climate change results in a flood of propaganda.
Inevitably, the climate change supporters will claim that these findings aren't statistically significant or that local temperature findings aren't relevant. Basically, if it doesn't reinforce the climate change agenda it's dismissed. Any anyone with disputing data is biased.
And nevermind the fact that we've had climate change since the Earth has first existed. And furthermore, history has shown that increased global temperatures have lead to human prosperity. Idiots like Ted Turner seem to believe that rising temperatures will somehow lead to drought and widespread famine but as far as I know no scientist has made that claim yet.
From my experience, if you're going for sheer legibility on a computer screen it's best to minimize contrast.
This means either black text on a background in the range of #EEEEEE or dark grey text, #333333, on white. Although I think the off-white background produces less eyestrain.
The ideal would probably be a black background with maybe #DDDDDD for text. I disagree that green on black is more legible, at least not the bright, neon green of old monitors. I'm almost inclined to say that amber might be a bit better, but again, a more subdued color is better.
I've always found grey text on a blue background to be surprisingly easy to read although some blues can be a bit too intense. I think the important thing is that contrast, at least excessive contrast is minimized.
And another very useful thing to enhance legibility is to increase font size. I understand the desire to try to fit as much on the screen as possible, but 18pt to 20pt type would go a long way to maximizing legibility. That in and of itself enhances legibility to the point of almost being comparable to reading a printed page.
I have the set which includes both versions. I watched the shorter version, however. A friend of mine saw both and felt that the longer version didn't really add much.
I may get around to watching it at some point but at this time I'm not inclined to sit through that movie again.
I finally read the Dune series last year. And because of that I decided to watch the David Lynch movie despite being aware of how bad it was. The movie managed to be even worse than my already low expectations.
The first problem was that they tried to cram every event from the book into the movie. So the entire movie felt like a summary of the book. No scene was sufficiently fleshed out and it was clear that if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have had any idea what the hell was going on. I even read that when the movie was released in the theaters that pamphlets were handed out to moviegoers so that they had some background on Dune.
The other major problem for me was the depiction of the Fremen and Stilgar in particular. The movie made them look like a band of bumbling, superstitious savages completely dependent on Paul and his mother. His mother was an emotional twit, nothing like the strong personality depicted in the book. And the baron was nothing more than a stereotypical comic book villain. I could go on indefinitely with my complaints of the movie.
I did, however, generally like the visual style of the movie. And I have to concede that Frank Herbert wasn't particularly good at depicting action sequences in his book. That final battle in the first book was about as big a letdown in writing as it was in the movie.
So, I am looking forward to a remake. However, I also expect to be disappointed by the usual Hollywood-style polish. I hope they're smart enough to not try to cram every last detail into the movie but still remain faithful to the Dune universe and its characters. The last thing we need is some hack's personal reinterpretation further soiled by a contemporary veneer of Hollywood coolness.
This is off topic, but I find your car analogy amusing considering that what you describe happens on a fairly regular basis.
The Lamgorghini Gallardo is powered by an Audi V10 engine and uses Audi's AWD system. The Lotus Elise comes with a Toyota Celica engine. The Saturn Vue is offered with a Honda V6 engine as an option.
Certain GM vehicles share platforms with other automakers, including Toyota. Some Chrysler and Dodge vehicles share platforms and use engines from Mitsubishi.
Ford shares platforms and engines with Mazda and Volvo. For example, the Mazda 3 and Volvo C30/S40/V50 all are based on the international, 2nd generation Ford Focus, not the crap 1st generation US-version.
And it all gets unbelievable complicated once we get into who owns what.
In my experience with branding colors always are part of a larger set which includes, the logo itself, font, visual style and sometimes even photography. The entire package is normally trademarked.
Companies can lay claim to particular colors but given that they inevitably are choosing from a finite set, and almost always from Pantone they're going to have a hard time laying claim to any particular color. It's almost always the combination of color and logo which matters most. Most companies probably wont get far trying to protect their color for a simple reason: the average person doesn't associate a particular color with that given brand. In other cases, however, color is a very integral part of the identity. For example, Ferrari is red, Fedex is purple and orange (although they've been diluting that combination a bit), UPS is brown and T-Mobile is magenta. These colors have a strong association with those brands.
So color is important, but it isn't everything. Obviously anyone can use any color; it isn't like copying a logo which takes actual work and intent. Of the company's I've listed FedEx would probably have the best case simply because it's the color combination that is unique. However, even then I don't see much of a case. If Engadget were using that magenta, in conjunction with T-Mobile's typeface and layout, the combination of the greys and the san serif font, then T-Mobile would likely have an actual case. They would have a case even without Engadget actually using T-Mobile's logo style because their brand identity is distinctive enough.
From what I see now I have a hard time believing T-Mobile has anything to dispute. But then I haven't really visited Engadget much to know what has prompted that letter.
A big concern I have with blogs is that many tend to perpetuate particular mindsets, and run stories so filtered that they're essentially untrue or at least, highly exaggerated. People inevitably gravitate towards like-minded individuals. Despite the fact the internet can provide a wide range of views many people end up reading only what agrees with their own beliefs.
I feel like people are getting increasingly polarized and narrow-minded and I think blogs, at least in some ways are helping to contribute to that. Get on some blogs and post even the slightest dissenting view and be prepared for a shit-storm of unimaginable proportions. They don't even want to consider an alternative.
On a fairly regular basis I'll visit some blog where the author interprets a particular news story. And of course news is cherry-picked to reinforce that author's particular messages. And as is often the case links don't direct a visitor to the original story but rather to yet another blog which essentially is saying more of the same. Most people aren't going to bother digging for both sides of the story.
I'll concede, however, that blogs are an immensely useful tool; they're a great alternative to the mainstream media. What I really look forward to is their continued use as a way to keep corporations, governments and other organizations in check.
I'm interested in FIOS for internet, although I find their television service overpriced, even compared to cable and satellite. Unfortunately, despite constant advertising bombardment I cant get it around here. Even in Manhattan the service is only available in new buildings and no one has any idea when everyone else will have access to it.
The highest quality HD I've seen to date has come via over-the-air signals; the good old antenna. My father set it up last year but continued to subscribe to cable. Earlier this year they raised rates, yet again, he got pissed and canceled. He occasionally wishes he still had a few of those channels he had with cable, but otherwise he doesn't miss it at all. More recently, he's been considering free-to-air satellite to augment what he gets now.
As for the reception, it's all digital so it's flawless. Even standard-definition is superior to cable, but HD is on a whole other level. It's a pity this doesn't get more attention. Some people actually believe over-the-air broadcasting is ending with the switch to digital; even at least one high-profile blog has perpetuated this notion.
If people wanted to screw the cable companies they'd just dump them. But people have a hard time letting go of all the programming they get. After a week, however, most wouldn't miss it. The majority of television programming is drivel anyway and most shows nowadays wind up on DVD or online further reducing the need for cable, satellite or anything else.
Of course if everyone left then these providers really wouldn't have the money to set up a proper network. But then, this is one of the very few times where I'm inclined to think that like the highway system a high speed communications network might be their responsibility. At least until I'd learn they're spending 5 times more than they should, taking 3 times longer than projected and making a mess of it.
I've gotten the impression that one of the big reasons why American companies run into all these problems is because executives and management all have business or economic degrees. They don't really understand what it is the companies they run do, nor do they seem to care.
That's why we end up with companies like Chrysler hiring the former CEO of Home Depot as their new CEO. What in the hell does a home improvement retailer have to do with an automobile manufacturer? To these people everything is "product". It's an abstraction with no bearing on reality. This why they're so quick to outsource. It's why they're willing to dump obscene amounts of money into marketing instead of research and development. American companies seem to take more pride in "inventing" a brand than they do in producing a real product. Everything always comes off as a gimmick to sucker people into buying their products.
I think Motorola is plagued with the same problem as many other American companies face. They're looking for that one big hit. Instead of following a path of patient improvement and building the overall portfolio they bank everything on a single product. In the process they neglect everything else. When they do come upon something popular they then proceed to milk it to death. The media doesn't help with all their gushing on how the company has turned around their fortunes. They rest on their laurels and when consumers grow tired of the product they find themselves struggling all over again.
I expect Motorola to keep plodding along as they have in recent years. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to outsource their entire mobile phone business. More than that, they'll dump their design and R&D departments and instead just buy crap hones directly from the Chinese market and rebrand them as Motorolas. The twit responsible for this will be touted as an innovator. Some day the Chinese will realize they don't need American companies and start selling to consumers directly.
When it comes down to it, American companies are quickly turning themselves into nothing more than middlemen. I wouldn't be so bothered by what these CEOs earn if they actually contributed something of substance to these companies. Unfortunately they seem to exist only to make themselves and their shareholders wealthy.
They could have purchased hundreds or thousands of off-the-shelf PDAs and had a company develop a basic piece of census-tracking software for a mere fraction of what this project costs. Instead they'll argue they need some elaborate, over-priced piece of hardware under the pretense that only something so fancy can reliably handle the government's needs. The best part is that the devices might not even work properly. What in the hell are these companies doing that even with this much money thrown at them they can't do anything right?
Still, that doesn't excuse the government's stupidity. It's like that stimulus package. As if enough money hasn't already been dumped into that some halfwit decided they needed to send out letters informing recipients that they were going to be receiving these checks. In many cases these notices will be arriving barely a month before the check arrives. Sending these letters out has cost the government over $40 million.
It's time the government's budget were capped at the rate of inflation making allowances only for population growth. It's time they learned how to manage their expenses like the rest of us have to.
I've considered the idea of legalizing drugs many times. In the end I find myself leaning on the side of legalization. The war on drugs has been a waste of money. I think entire drug trade would collapse fairly quickly with legalization much like the end of prohibition hurt organized crime.
There need to be some very strict conditions placed on drug users. This isn't as simple as someone smoking or injecting themselves with whatever they please. Like it or not what drug users do can have in impact on everyone else. The guy occasionally smoking marijuana likely wont affect anyone. However, the cocaine addict likely will.
What happens when a user is incapable of getting a job but requires medical care because of his addiction? Obviously we all have to pay for it.
What about when people start getting it into their heads to sue drug companies because they weren't "aware" of all the negative side-effects? We've known about the dangers of smoking for years, to one extent or another. We might not have known all the details but we knew they were bad; there have been warning labels on the packs for years. And yet people have managed to successfully sue the tobacco companies.
Even with stringent regulations in place it would only be a matter of time before the media starts running sob stories on how drug users aren't receiving adequate care, how they're vilified for their habit, how we need to do more. So in the end if we aren't spending the money fighting drugs we'll be spending it sustaining the system.
I do feel, however, that the crime brought about by illegal drugs is serious enough a problem that the benefits of legalizing drugs outweigh the negatives.
I guess you envision George Bush kind of like Jesus Christ in those awkward paintings where he's secretly standing behind everyone. Bush is there observing us, regardless of whether we've joined the family for dinner, are sitting on the crapper, or have mistakenly just typed in Taiwan on the shipping invoice.
Is he shedding a tear or cackling with sinister glee?
To me this is a reflection of the state of progress in America today. We can't do anything without someone coming along, regardless of how far off on the fringe they may be, pointing out some detrimental impact on health, nature, historical value, way of life or one of a million other things. These people manage to cause enough of a stir to delay projects indefinitely, or get them cancelled outright, even if the benefits of these projects far outweigh any negatives.
I can think of close to a dozen such projects in my area that will likely never see the light of day even though they would be a boon for almost everyone, all thanks to people who I feel, quite frankly, are nothing but whiners. People claim to want change, but what they're really looking for is security from change. It's like progress and change has taken on very unfavorable connotations for many people.
I'd argue that it's this sort of thinking hindering a lot of progress, particularly in the United States where these sort of notions seem to be more prevalent.
I'm not suggesting that humanity trample across nature with impudence. I suggest that instead of getting hung up on the problems, first focus on progress then find ways implement those technologies in a beneficial and unobtrusive manner.
I don't think we'll see real progress if we keep thinking small and can't get past every little potential problem. I think we've already gotten a bit too unambitious.
I really don't understand what these developers are thinking when they develop PC games that wont run well on current hardware. I can't help but get the impression that some developers specifically make their games demanding so that they end up in tech benchmarks ultimately providing them with a good deal of free advertising. But then what good is it when the majority of gamers wont even be able to enjoy these games as they've been advertised.
What's happened with me for over a decade now is that shortly after getting a new PC I'll buy a handful of games. Eventually I start hitting performance issues and find myself not buying anything. It gets to a point where I no longer even bother following what's out there because what is the point if my PC wont even be able to handle it.
This has been an issue since at least the 386 era. The difference is, however, that back then once I had a PC that was up to par it would be sufficiently powerful for quite a few years. That performance window has shrunken dramatically in recent years. My last PC, now over 4 years old, barely went a year before being inadequate for gaming. What I find amusing is how it's still handles everything else so well, including some graphics intensive work.
Obviously, I expect that a 10 year old machine wont be able to handle current games. But it's absurd that a PC nowadays is rendered obsolete far quicker than a console. And on top of that the longer a console has been around the better games for the console generally are because developers have figured out how to best utilize the system. PCs follow the opposite path; the older they are the less I can do.
And what, to me, discredits the competence of developers is a game like Street Fighter 4. That game is running on Core 2 Duo's, Pentium 4s and Celeron Ds equipped with Intel Q965 chipset which apparently is no good for graphics. It may not be the most graphically demanding game out there, but it certainly looks good. The same game produced by a PC developer would certainly wouldn't run nearly that well on that hardware.
I find it insulting when I'm told I can turn down graphical settings. I paid $50 to play the game depicted on the box and in screenshots online. Why should I have endure a compromised gaming experience because the developer felt it unnecessary to optimize performance. Maybe I should be charged based on what I can get out of the game.
Is there anything carbon nanotubes can't do? Every few weeks I read about some new application for those things; space elevators, batteries, muscles, it just doesn't end. I'm honestly impressed.
I wonder if there really is a drive against science in the United States or if it's just sensationalism on the part of the media. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't believe in evolution, the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and that the earth orbits the sun and that neither are at the center of the universe. And they would think it's preposterous to think otherwise. And the beliefs same regardless of whether or not they're religious.
Perhaps I live in the wrong part of the country, but I still think there's a bit of sensationalism going on here. I've found people to be informed, to varying degrees of course, thanks to television and especially the internet. A quick search of the internet can uncover quite a bit of information, and disinformation as well, I'll admit.
What I've found interesting while living in Asia is how much more pervasive spirituality and religion is there. It's embedded in the culture. Astrology there is more complex and taken more seriously there. You can buy books on how to use spiritual guides to help win the lottery. They still believe in things like phrenology. I can't count the times I've heard people say that a taller forehead means you're more intelligent. In China a school recently stated that kids with flatter heads were more apt to do poorly in school. Pretty much any part of someone's body can supposedly signify something.
No one really seems to question it. They just see it as another way to view the world I guess. And these notions are prevalent everywhere in east Asia, even in Japan. I'm not passing judgment one way or another, but pointing out that this certainly isn't unique to the United States.
Although I admit recent efforts to force creationism into the science class is concerning, to say the least. And while I think something needs to be done to stop that sort of nonsense I don't think it's a major problem yet. I'm more concerned about influences from popular culture. Look at all the attention given to garbage like American Idol. I'm more concerned about celebrities and athletes get all the attention but we barely hear anything about science and technology. We don't hear anything in the popular media about all the scientific progress being made and the valuable role scientists play in our society.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple's success is so heavily dependent on a single product I think they've got more important things to worry about.
Honestly, I think this is a problem with American companies and media. All they seem to care about is that one hit. They're desperate to come up with the one product that will ensure success, at least temporarily. Because then all too often they seem content to rest on their laurels or worse go to extreme lengths to prevent competition.
So what do we constantly hear from the media, nonsense about this-killer and that-killer, how a particular product is going to change everything and there apparently is little patience for methodical, evolving improvements.
The iPod didn't just fall out of Apple's collective ass. It really was the embodiment of Apple's design philosophy and corporate vision. It also helped that Apple actually had the resources to design the device, develop the software and actually have a direct hand in it's manufacture.
Contrast that with other companies who claim they want to develop something to compete with the iPod. In many cases, like Microsoft, they take an existing product, a Toshiba MP3 player, and customize it for their use. For that reason alone it will never be as well integrated as the iPod.
In many other cases companies will take existing products, particularly Chinese-made products, rebrand them, maybe modify the external design slightly, and resell them here. So the American consumer gets stuck with a subpar product. In the short-term the company earns some easy money but in the long-term they've hurt their brand.
There are many other issues here, but this is one of the bigger problems I see afflicting American companies. Many American companies don't actually make anything anymore. They've effectively dumping the engineering and manufacturing core of the business and have focused almost completely on marketing. Innovation seems to only exist within marketing departments. They're constantly hunting for new advertising gimmick to sucker people into buying more of the same.
Instead of taking the approach of focusing on quality at a premium they're still trying to compete on price. Then they wonder why they lose to the, usually foreign, competition. And when things go south they always blame everyone and everything but their own decision-making. Granted, I'm over-simplifying a bit, but I do think it's a big problem nonetheless.
I agree web design has become a horrendous mess. Unfortunately, it isn't going to get any better with companies trying to shove more advertising and content in our face.
Working in design I face this constantly. Clients predictably insist they want a clean, minimalist design then over the course of the project proceed to cram as much as they possibly can onto the page. And of course every last shred of content is so important that it needs to land above the cutoff for the browser window.
The problem is that nobody takes interface design seriously, particularly not on the web. Companies are already cheap enough as it is, but they're certainly not going to pay for the kind of consulting and guidance required to make a page function as it should. And designers certainly aren't helping things. Most design something with little thought other than because it looks good. They may know how to design something aesthetically pleasing and visually impressive but once they have to handle real content they're lost and the design falls apart.
But here's my impression whether or not the blind deserve more effort on the web, and it's probably considered insensitive by some: I say no. I don't mean that efforts shouldn't be made to aid the blind, I mean that they shouldn't be forced on us through legislation.
The internet is a very visual medium. That's a very basic fact. These people can't realistically expect that everyone else should have to accommodate their disability. If a company decides they want to be sensitive to the needs of the blind on their website, that's great. If other companies decide to develop software to assist the blind with browsing the internet, that's good too.
However, to force more accommmodation through lawsuits and legislation is just nonsense. And unfortunately, it's already happened.
I've been told that the glossy screens are appealing to companies because they make for a more eye-catching presentation in stores. They tend to make colors appear more vibrant; I'm not sure why, and I guess most people are impressed by shiny things.
I personally don't like them. I have one of the current iMacs at work with the glass screen. I happen to be sitting in a spot where reflection and clare is minimal, but even then I can see reflections of things around me in the screen.
I have matte LCD screens at home which I much prefer. Obviously those have no issue with glare. And if I were to get a laptop no way in hell would I get one with a glossy screen. Given that they might be used anywhere it's going to be inevitable that there will be issues with glare.
I don't see how a particular technology can be criticized based on today's limitations. It would be like someone in 1985 completely discrediting 3D because computers back then couldn't handle it. Why bother with 3D when 2D games provided a suitably entertaining experience.
While some of today's games certainly look impressive they've still got a long way to go because they can be deemed realistic. Actually, I find photo-realism to be bland. It's kind of like photo-realistic paintings. Certainly, the technique is extremely impressive, but ultimately, what's the point if the end result looks no different than a photograph?
I'll concede, however, that realism in gaming is a bit different. There is a big place for it in the future of gaming if for no other reason than to provide a holodeck-like experience.
That said, I don't think console and PC gaming is even on Pixar's level in terms of sophistication of graphics. They're very good, but they don't yet come close in terms of animation, detail, textures or lighting.
I don't know all the technical details of ray tracing, but to me I'd say the big advantage would be how it affects production. Current games require a considerable amount of work in order to reproduce all kinds of visual effects. With ray tracing a developer merely has to designate a surface as reflective or drop a light somewhere in the scene; the hardware handles all the math and everything comes out automatically looking right.
I think the inherent problem with that is that ISPs will almost certainly heavily overcharge the user even worse than they do now.
Doubtless they'd charge a flat rate, especially if they were to implement such a system now. People are used to being charged a flat rate so they aren't necessarily going to expect a change.
On top of that rate they will then charge for usage. But instead of charging a reasonable amount per Mb, or whatever metric they choose, they'll extort the user on the level mobile service providers do who charge 20 cents per message. I have no clue what a reasonable rate would be, but I'd venture to say it would be a fraction of a cent per Mb.
Otherwise I'd support such a model if they adopted the same approach as utilities like water, gas or electricity. The only fees charged are based on actual usage and although they raise rates more than I'd like at least they still have to justify those increases to the state.
Why does the headline claim that climate change is having an impact on the growing of barley when the very brief linked article makes no such claim. This climate scientist uses, "likely will", "might" and "will" quite liberally.
I find it impressive how the media has so effectively shifted the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". So now any time weather deviates from some arbitrary norm we're feeling the effects of climate change. And don't forget to add that it's man-made!
In fact, on NPR recently a NASA scientist stated that the Argo satellite has shown slight cooling over the past five years. Another thing is that scientists are starting to find that CO2 doesn't quite provide the positive feedback that causes a rise in temperature, instead it acts as a sort of damper. If I could find where I read that I'd link it here but inevitably any search on global warming and climate change results in a flood of propaganda.
Inevitably, the climate change supporters will claim that these findings aren't statistically significant or that local temperature findings aren't relevant. Basically, if it doesn't reinforce the climate change agenda it's dismissed. Any anyone with disputing data is biased.
And nevermind the fact that we've had climate change since the Earth has first existed. And furthermore, history has shown that increased global temperatures have lead to human prosperity. Idiots like Ted Turner seem to believe that rising temperatures will somehow lead to drought and widespread famine but as far as I know no scientist has made that claim yet.
From my experience, if you're going for sheer legibility on a computer screen it's best to minimize contrast.
This means either black text on a background in the range of #EEEEEE or dark grey text, #333333, on white. Although I think the off-white background produces less eyestrain.
The ideal would probably be a black background with maybe #DDDDDD for text. I disagree that green on black is more legible, at least not the bright, neon green of old monitors. I'm almost inclined to say that amber might be a bit better, but again, a more subdued color is better.
I've always found grey text on a blue background to be surprisingly easy to read although some blues can be a bit too intense. I think the important thing is that contrast, at least excessive contrast is minimized.
And another very useful thing to enhance legibility is to increase font size. I understand the desire to try to fit as much on the screen as possible, but 18pt to 20pt type would go a long way to maximizing legibility. That in and of itself enhances legibility to the point of almost being comparable to reading a printed page.
Is it me or does that Face Bank look like Nagilum.
I have the set which includes both versions. I watched the shorter version, however. A friend of mine saw both and felt that the longer version didn't really add much.
I may get around to watching it at some point but at this time I'm not inclined to sit through that movie again.
I finally read the Dune series last year. And because of that I decided to watch the David Lynch movie despite being aware of how bad it was. The movie managed to be even worse than my already low expectations.
The first problem was that they tried to cram every event from the book into the movie. So the entire movie felt like a summary of the book. No scene was sufficiently fleshed out and it was clear that if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have had any idea what the hell was going on. I even read that when the movie was released in the theaters that pamphlets were handed out to moviegoers so that they had some background on Dune.
The other major problem for me was the depiction of the Fremen and Stilgar in particular. The movie made them look like a band of bumbling, superstitious savages completely dependent on Paul and his mother. His mother was an emotional twit, nothing like the strong personality depicted in the book. And the baron was nothing more than a stereotypical comic book villain. I could go on indefinitely with my complaints of the movie.
I did, however, generally like the visual style of the movie. And I have to concede that Frank Herbert wasn't particularly good at depicting action sequences in his book. That final battle in the first book was about as big a letdown in writing as it was in the movie.
So, I am looking forward to a remake. However, I also expect to be disappointed by the usual Hollywood-style polish. I hope they're smart enough to not try to cram every last detail into the movie but still remain faithful to the Dune universe and its characters. The last thing we need is some hack's personal reinterpretation further soiled by a contemporary veneer of Hollywood coolness.
This is off topic, but I find your car analogy amusing considering that what you describe happens on a fairly regular basis.
The Lamgorghini Gallardo is powered by an Audi V10 engine and uses Audi's AWD system. The Lotus Elise comes with a Toyota Celica engine. The Saturn Vue is offered with a Honda V6 engine as an option.
Certain GM vehicles share platforms with other automakers, including Toyota. Some Chrysler and Dodge vehicles share platforms and use engines from Mitsubishi.
Ford shares platforms and engines with Mazda and Volvo. For example, the Mazda 3 and Volvo C30/S40/V50 all are based on the international, 2nd generation Ford Focus, not the crap 1st generation US-version.
And it all gets unbelievable complicated once we get into who owns what.
In my experience with branding colors always are part of a larger set which includes, the logo itself, font, visual style and sometimes even photography. The entire package is normally trademarked.
Companies can lay claim to particular colors but given that they inevitably are choosing from a finite set, and almost always from Pantone they're going to have a hard time laying claim to any particular color. It's almost always the combination of color and logo which matters most. Most companies probably wont get far trying to protect their color for a simple reason: the average person doesn't associate a particular color with that given brand. In other cases, however, color is a very integral part of the identity. For example, Ferrari is red, Fedex is purple and orange (although they've been diluting that combination a bit), UPS is brown and T-Mobile is magenta. These colors have a strong association with those brands.
So color is important, but it isn't everything. Obviously anyone can use any color; it isn't like copying a logo which takes actual work and intent. Of the company's I've listed FedEx would probably have the best case simply because it's the color combination that is unique. However, even then I don't see much of a case. If Engadget were using that magenta, in conjunction with T-Mobile's typeface and layout, the combination of the greys and the san serif font, then T-Mobile would likely have an actual case. They would have a case even without Engadget actually using T-Mobile's logo style because their brand identity is distinctive enough.
From what I see now I have a hard time believing T-Mobile has anything to dispute. But then I haven't really visited Engadget much to know what has prompted that letter.
A big concern I have with blogs is that many tend to perpetuate particular mindsets, and run stories so filtered that they're essentially untrue or at least, highly exaggerated. People inevitably gravitate towards like-minded individuals. Despite the fact the internet can provide a wide range of views many people end up reading only what agrees with their own beliefs.
I feel like people are getting increasingly polarized and narrow-minded and I think blogs, at least in some ways are helping to contribute to that. Get on some blogs and post even the slightest dissenting view and be prepared for a shit-storm of unimaginable proportions. They don't even want to consider an alternative.
On a fairly regular basis I'll visit some blog where the author interprets a particular news story. And of course news is cherry-picked to reinforce that author's particular messages. And as is often the case links don't direct a visitor to the original story but rather to yet another blog which essentially is saying more of the same. Most people aren't going to bother digging for both sides of the story.
I'll concede, however, that blogs are an immensely useful tool; they're a great alternative to the mainstream media. What I really look forward to is their continued use as a way to keep corporations, governments and other organizations in check.
I'm interested in FIOS for internet, although I find their television service overpriced, even compared to cable and satellite. Unfortunately, despite constant advertising bombardment I cant get it around here. Even in Manhattan the service is only available in new buildings and no one has any idea when everyone else will have access to it.
The highest quality HD I've seen to date has come via over-the-air signals; the good old antenna. My father set it up last year but continued to subscribe to cable. Earlier this year they raised rates, yet again, he got pissed and canceled. He occasionally wishes he still had a few of those channels he had with cable, but otherwise he doesn't miss it at all. More recently, he's been considering free-to-air satellite to augment what he gets now.
As for the reception, it's all digital so it's flawless. Even standard-definition is superior to cable, but HD is on a whole other level. It's a pity this doesn't get more attention. Some people actually believe over-the-air broadcasting is ending with the switch to digital; even at least one high-profile blog has perpetuated this notion.
If people wanted to screw the cable companies they'd just dump them. But people have a hard time letting go of all the programming they get. After a week, however, most wouldn't miss it. The majority of television programming is drivel anyway and most shows nowadays wind up on DVD or online further reducing the need for cable, satellite or anything else.
Of course if everyone left then these providers really wouldn't have the money to set up a proper network. But then, this is one of the very few times where I'm inclined to think that like the highway system a high speed communications network might be their responsibility. At least until I'd learn they're spending 5 times more than they should, taking 3 times longer than projected and making a mess of it.
I've gotten the impression that one of the big reasons why American companies run into all these problems is because executives and management all have business or economic degrees. They don't really understand what it is the companies they run do, nor do they seem to care.
That's why we end up with companies like Chrysler hiring the former CEO of Home Depot as their new CEO. What in the hell does a home improvement retailer have to do with an automobile manufacturer? To these people everything is "product". It's an abstraction with no bearing on reality. This why they're so quick to outsource. It's why they're willing to dump obscene amounts of money into marketing instead of research and development. American companies seem to take more pride in "inventing" a brand than they do in producing a real product. Everything always comes off as a gimmick to sucker people into buying their products.
I think Motorola is plagued with the same problem as many other American companies face. They're looking for that one big hit. Instead of following a path of patient improvement and building the overall portfolio they bank everything on a single product. In the process they neglect everything else. When they do come upon something popular they then proceed to milk it to death. The media doesn't help with all their gushing on how the company has turned around their fortunes. They rest on their laurels and when consumers grow tired of the product they find themselves struggling all over again.
I expect Motorola to keep plodding along as they have in recent years. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to outsource their entire mobile phone business. More than that, they'll dump their design and R&D departments and instead just buy crap hones directly from the Chinese market and rebrand them as Motorolas. The twit responsible for this will be touted as an innovator. Some day the Chinese will realize they don't need American companies and start selling to consumers directly.
When it comes down to it, American companies are quickly turning themselves into nothing more than middlemen. I wouldn't be so bothered by what these CEOs earn if they actually contributed something of substance to these companies. Unfortunately they seem to exist only to make themselves and their shareholders wealthy.
They could have purchased hundreds or thousands of off-the-shelf PDAs and had a company develop a basic piece of census-tracking software for a mere fraction of what this project costs. Instead they'll argue they need some elaborate, over-priced piece of hardware under the pretense that only something so fancy can reliably handle the government's needs. The best part is that the devices might not even work properly. What in the hell are these companies doing that even with this much money thrown at them they can't do anything right?
Still, that doesn't excuse the government's stupidity. It's like that stimulus package. As if enough money hasn't already been dumped into that some halfwit decided they needed to send out letters informing recipients that they were going to be receiving these checks. In many cases these notices will be arriving barely a month before the check arrives. Sending these letters out has cost the government over $40 million.
It's time the government's budget were capped at the rate of inflation making allowances only for population growth. It's time they learned how to manage their expenses like the rest of us have to.
I've considered the idea of legalizing drugs many times. In the end I find myself leaning on the side of legalization. The war on drugs has been a waste of money. I think entire drug trade would collapse fairly quickly with legalization much like the end of prohibition hurt organized crime.
There need to be some very strict conditions placed on drug users. This isn't as simple as someone smoking or injecting themselves with whatever they please. Like it or not what drug users do can have in impact on everyone else. The guy occasionally smoking marijuana likely wont affect anyone. However, the cocaine addict likely will.
What happens when a user is incapable of getting a job but requires medical care because of his addiction? Obviously we all have to pay for it.
What about when people start getting it into their heads to sue drug companies because they weren't "aware" of all the negative side-effects? We've known about the dangers of smoking for years, to one extent or another. We might not have known all the details but we knew they were bad; there have been warning labels on the packs for years. And yet people have managed to successfully sue the tobacco companies.
Even with stringent regulations in place it would only be a matter of time before the media starts running sob stories on how drug users aren't receiving adequate care, how they're vilified for their habit, how we need to do more. So in the end if we aren't spending the money fighting drugs we'll be spending it sustaining the system.
I do feel, however, that the crime brought about by illegal drugs is serious enough a problem that the benefits of legalizing drugs outweigh the negatives.
I guess you envision George Bush kind of like Jesus Christ in those awkward paintings where he's secretly standing behind everyone. Bush is there observing us, regardless of whether we've joined the family for dinner, are sitting on the crapper, or have mistakenly just typed in Taiwan on the shipping invoice.
Is he shedding a tear or cackling with sinister glee?
To me this is a reflection of the state of progress in America today. We can't do anything without someone coming along, regardless of how far off on the fringe they may be, pointing out some detrimental impact on health, nature, historical value, way of life or one of a million other things. These people manage to cause enough of a stir to delay projects indefinitely, or get them cancelled outright, even if the benefits of these projects far outweigh any negatives.
I can think of close to a dozen such projects in my area that will likely never see the light of day even though they would be a boon for almost everyone, all thanks to people who I feel, quite frankly, are nothing but whiners. People claim to want change, but what they're really looking for is security from change. It's like progress and change has taken on very unfavorable connotations for many people.
I'd argue that it's this sort of thinking hindering a lot of progress, particularly in the United States where these sort of notions seem to be more prevalent.
I'm not suggesting that humanity trample across nature with impudence. I suggest that instead of getting hung up on the problems, first focus on progress then find ways implement those technologies in a beneficial and unobtrusive manner.
I don't think we'll see real progress if we keep thinking small and can't get past every little potential problem. I think we've already gotten a bit too unambitious.
I really don't understand what these developers are thinking when they develop PC games that wont run well on current hardware. I can't help but get the impression that some developers specifically make their games demanding so that they end up in tech benchmarks ultimately providing them with a good deal of free advertising. But then what good is it when the majority of gamers wont even be able to enjoy these games as they've been advertised.
What's happened with me for over a decade now is that shortly after getting a new PC I'll buy a handful of games. Eventually I start hitting performance issues and find myself not buying anything. It gets to a point where I no longer even bother following what's out there because what is the point if my PC wont even be able to handle it.
This has been an issue since at least the 386 era. The difference is, however, that back then once I had a PC that was up to par it would be sufficiently powerful for quite a few years. That performance window has shrunken dramatically in recent years. My last PC, now over 4 years old, barely went a year before being inadequate for gaming. What I find amusing is how it's still handles everything else so well, including some graphics intensive work.
Obviously, I expect that a 10 year old machine wont be able to handle current games. But it's absurd that a PC nowadays is rendered obsolete far quicker than a console. And on top of that the longer a console has been around the better games for the console generally are because developers have figured out how to best utilize the system. PCs follow the opposite path; the older they are the less I can do.
And what, to me, discredits the competence of developers is a game like Street Fighter 4. That game is running on Core 2 Duo's, Pentium 4s and Celeron Ds equipped with Intel Q965 chipset which apparently is no good for graphics. It may not be the most graphically demanding game out there, but it certainly looks good. The same game produced by a PC developer would certainly wouldn't run nearly that well on that hardware.
I find it insulting when I'm told I can turn down graphical settings. I paid $50 to play the game depicted on the box and in screenshots online. Why should I have endure a compromised gaming experience because the developer felt it unnecessary to optimize performance. Maybe I should be charged based on what I can get out of the game.
Is there anything carbon nanotubes can't do? Every few weeks I read about some new application for those things; space elevators, batteries, muscles, it just doesn't end. I'm honestly impressed.
I sincerely tried to follow all that, but it's so far over my head that it's in orbit around Jupiter.
I wonder if there really is a drive against science in the United States or if it's just sensationalism on the part of the media. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't believe in evolution, the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and that the earth orbits the sun and that neither are at the center of the universe. And they would think it's preposterous to think otherwise. And the beliefs same regardless of whether or not they're religious.
Perhaps I live in the wrong part of the country, but I still think there's a bit of sensationalism going on here. I've found people to be informed, to varying degrees of course, thanks to television and especially the internet. A quick search of the internet can uncover quite a bit of information, and disinformation as well, I'll admit.
What I've found interesting while living in Asia is how much more pervasive spirituality and religion is there. It's embedded in the culture. Astrology there is more complex and taken more seriously there. You can buy books on how to use spiritual guides to help win the lottery. They still believe in things like phrenology. I can't count the times I've heard people say that a taller forehead means you're more intelligent. In China a school recently stated that kids with flatter heads were more apt to do poorly in school. Pretty much any part of someone's body can supposedly signify something.
No one really seems to question it. They just see it as another way to view the world I guess. And these notions are prevalent everywhere in east Asia, even in Japan. I'm not passing judgment one way or another, but pointing out that this certainly isn't unique to the United States.
Although I admit recent efforts to force creationism into the science class is concerning, to say the least. And while I think something needs to be done to stop that sort of nonsense I don't think it's a major problem yet. I'm more concerned about influences from popular culture. Look at all the attention given to garbage like American Idol. I'm more concerned about celebrities and athletes get all the attention but we barely hear anything about science and technology. We don't hear anything in the popular media about all the scientific progress being made and the valuable role scientists play in our society.
Resorting to insults. That's classy. Can't make a real argument, but you're good with the insults.