Come on, we should know better about extended warranties. Applecare on a Powerbook is $349. That's a pretty steep bet that you're probably going to lose. After all it doesn't cover accidents like drops or spills, which are the primary cause of laptop demise. The second leading problem is hard drive failure, which, if it happens, can be repaired by a tech for less than $200 (cost including the new drive.) Third are logic board or screen problems, which are expensive but not so likely. You may be out $700 if that happens (and it's a small chance), but if you go with Applecare you are certainly out $349 either way.
Remember, you get a year's warranty with purchase. If the model has a defect that will show within the year. If not, it will probably last for three or four years without trouble. The chances of a serious problem (other than drive failure) within the second or third year are pretty slim, and if there's not a problem Apple keeps the cash. If you're anything like me in two, three or four years you'll be eyeing a new notebook anyway, and the $349 you blew on Applecare would go a long way towards a brand new model.
If Applecare was less-- like $100-- I'd say it was good insurance. But right now, it's just a cash cow for Apple.
No games deserve a sequel, this is the number one problem in the gaming industry today.
Stop right there. There are a lot of great game sequels out there, and a lot of games that could use sequels. If the original was fun and had a great story that came to an end too soon, or had an immersive world that could sustain revisiting there's no reason not to revisit it. I'd love another Starcraft or Fallout. Most of the Zeldas, Marios and Metroids are pretty damn good. I'd keep playing Neverwinter Nights expansion packs if there were more, and I'm looking forward to any sequels. Etc...
Reinventing the wheel as far as the game mechanics go can be nice, but sometimes it's fun to just return to a game you love. I look at a great franchise like Final Fantasy as an episodic TV series... After all, they didn't make just one Simpsons and call it quits. A lot of the episodes are duds, as are some Final Fantasy games, but there are great ones too.
And yes, a lot of sequels suck, but just as many if not more original games suck too. We just tend to brush those aside because the disappointment factor isn't as great.
In all honestly, why can't the entertainment industry get it in their head that sequels kill a franchise, especially when NO effort is made to keep them fresh and original. I am sure XMEN 3 will do well this year, but only because they are banking on repeats by past fans, I am also very sure that XMEN 3 will have vapid and underwhelming story line with lots of duplicated scenes and action. I can't wait for the slew of franchise games based on XMEN 3 this year, we all know that games based on movies do well.
X-men is based on-- get this-- a comic book. Superhero comic book movies by their very nature are franchises (not all comic book movies, of course, but I'm not talking about Ghost World.) The fact that the sequels often suck is a problem, but it has more to do with filmmakers (and more precisely, studio heads) who have no affinity for (or who probably never even read) the source material. That doesn't mean a good series of comic book movies can't, or shouldn't be done. Spiderman and Spiderman 2 are pretty good, for example.
Good thoughts but a bit, uh, "last century." I don't think there's much call at this point for a device that simply surfs the web and checks email. We all have computers, after all. Not that the device shouldn't do that, but it needs more... "oomph."
So if you're going to speculate, why not think ahead? Downloadable shows and movies (and Google video, of course) is a given. Google could potentially circumvent DirectTV and cable with broadband pay-per-views.
Or how about a small camera enabling video chat and conferencing, so you could have multiple friends' windows open while you're all watching the same show or looking at the same web page? The teens would kill for something like that.
In the "PC" (Wintel) market, this would be dead in the water, but the Apple market (including the iPod market) is far more trend-driven. People who buy Apple products (including iPods, excluding probably the iPod Nano and the Mac Mini) are relatively likely to be willing to spend hundreds of bucks on some shiny new geegaw, if it's appealing enough.
Seriously, WTF are you going on about? This isn't 1997 any more and the Wintel/Mac stereotypes are really tired. They make for good flamebait, but that's about it... Classifying Mac owners as trendy idiots who throw their money away is ridiculous (before you call me a fanboy I own a PC and a Mac and use them both, and I don't own or care to own an iPod.) And at this point far more PC users own iPods than Mac users. And yes, iPod owners are prone to buy accessories, but if you look at what actually sells (and the prices) the most popular ones make sense-- FM transmitters, protective cases etc. (There are some ridiculous ones, too, but that's a fringe market.)
As far as the product itself-- yes, it's a neat toy (though I get a headache trying to imagine using it.) No, it won't take the world by storm at that price, but it's new tech so it's not really supposed to.
I'd love to buy one, but currently the machine is lacking software. Very badly. Give it software and I'll buy one asap!
I'm thinking the same thing. The list of games that really work (not just "kind of work") is pretty slim. The MAME port, for example, is outdated and buggy (like, v.34 I think-- could be wrong) and doesn't even support all of the roms from that version. Ditto Playstation, SNES, NEo Geo. I really want to like the GP2x but it's just not there yet for the casual gamer.
I hope development continues, and I know it's kind of a vicious circle in that hobbyist development won't progress at a decent pace unless there's an appreciative audience, but the non-programmer gamers won't be buying the device in numbers until the games are there. I'm in the latter group, of course, and unfortunately I can't justify the expense for an object that's not that useful just to "support the scene."
Unfortunately the strip mall/downtown "specialty store" is going to be the casualty of on-line shopping. Keep in mind, though, it's always a risky venture to open a shop like that, whether 1976 or 2006 (the only thing more risky is opening a restaurant.) You're selling paintball equiptment and skateboards, both trendy items that go in and out of favor. Your clientelle is most likely primarily 15-25 year old men, a pretty transient age group-- they tend to move away, or lose interest, or whatever and don't make for the most loyal of customers. And the biggest factor is location, of course-- your potential customers are pretty much those who live within a twenty to thrity minute radius, so if the 15-25 year old men in the vicinity aren't into skateboards and paintball you're S.O.L.
RSS is useful if you hit a lot of webpages every day. It's an efficient way of being alerted to new articles or such. Instead of spending 2 hours loading up websites and glancing at them to see if there's anything new (assuming your memory is that great to start with, otherwise you'd feel a lot of deja vu), RSS readers aggregate all the new items for you to chug through in 5 minutes.
Yes... But I don't think the bulk of internet users care about efficiency. For every power user who wants or needs news articles fed to them in real time, there are dozens if not hundreds more who just want to browse as a means of procrastination or zoning out at work.
Not that RSS can't be an invaluable tool, but I can't see it "going mainstream", and I certainly can't see standalone readers finding wide acceptance. It's just easier (and much more mindless) for most people to open the browser and check out what's new on Fark.
There are dozens of "third world" countries that are impoverished but civilized and even peaceful, and there are millions of kids in these countries who would benefit from this program. Much of South America, for example, or parts of Central and Eastern Asia (from Bangladesh and even parts of India, to Cambodia and Vietnam and then all the way to the Phillipines.) Africa has a lot of trouble spots but there are relatively peaceful countries like Kenya that could use this too.
Selecting a random sample from the population is often the hardest part of any survey, but can be done correctly. To flat out say that using samples means that the data is irrelevant is completely inaccurate.
Which is why you should not put any faith in polls and surveys. They assume that a small number of people are the perfect representations of their demographics, and a few people who go "against the grain" for one reason or another (not all of us are living stereotypes) can tip the scales heavily. Seven of the ten elderly Hispanic women polled happen to use e-mail, suddenly it's a "surprising trend." That means their personal circumstances- family, jobs, whatever- led them to own computers, not that 70% of elderly Hispanic women across the country are online.
Hell, surveys are based on people who don't mind answering a few (sometimes very personal) questions when cold-called at home during dinner (or accosted by a guy with a clipboard at the mall, or whatever.) Personally I don't know a single person who would bother, even my grandmother would hang up the phone. How does that factor in to the polling process? I mean, those who would opt-in to be hassled are certainly of a different mentality than those who wouldn't, is there really an accurate formula to account for the latter since the survey purports to represent them too?
That is what they should have said about "Firefly".
I don't know if was a Time critic's "Show of the Year", but Firefly got a lot of great reviews. So did a lot of other shows that died too young, including two of my personal favorites "Freaks and Geeks" and "Greg the Bunny." Good reviews don't have much, if anything to do with ratings on the big five (or six or whatever) networks
A better lesson that could be learned is that Sci-Fi stuck with a good show that good middling-to-decent ratings (actually, they're great for the Sci Fi channel) and now it's building a loyal fanbase that will be there for years to come. Maybe Whedon (who has enough experience that he should know how things work) should've taken Firefly to cable in the first place.
"GIMP" is already a derogatory term for a someone who's crippled (and it usually implies some sort of mental defect too.) IMO changing the name to "Baby Guts" would be an improvement.
This shouldn't be a troll. Arnold Schwartzenegger's support of the bill should be questioned. I mean, come on... He's killed literally thousands of people in his movies, almost always with a smile and snide comeback. Here's a man who made a career- as well as hundreds of millions of dollars- from some of the most violent action films the world has ever seen... Huge box office hits, often R-rated but always aimed squarely at the teenage male demographic. Quite a few of them led to very violent video games, btw... including but not limited to the Terminators to the Predator franchise.
Arnold is the action star of the 80's and early 90's. He would not be governor today if not for his roles in Conan, Commando and The Terminator. He was elected because he's famous and because of his virile action star, get-things-done image (in contrast to his milquetoast predecessor.) Who the hell is he to come out against game violence? Didn't he just star in (and executive produce) Terminator 3 like two or three years ago? You think he really feels this way, or is he doing whatever he can to get the Democrats to support him for a second term? Would he sign the same bill if it advocated tighter restrictions on violence in movies?
These plantiffs are suing because the DVD's arent there in "one-day" always. Isn't that the postal services fault?
I think the complaint is that their turnaround (receive disk A, send disk B) is often not within one business day as they claim. From my experience (and plenty of anecdotal evidence, here and elsewhere) they seem to deliberately slow down deliveries... Often if I would send three disks back at the same time one or two would be "received" a day before the others, and the replacements would come a day or two or three apart. That's Netflix's fault, not the post office.
Libel and slander aren't criminal matters. "Libel laws" are precedents set by civil trials. You don't go to jail for libel, but the offended party can (and often do) sue for damages. The bulk of past judgements have shown that public figures have less grounds for a case than the average citizen... This is strangely not the case for corporations.
Politicians don't usually pursue their enemies for libel because it's not in their best interest to do so. It's better for a politician to be aloof and ignore outlandish charges... Hoping to make the accuser look like a crackpot. A libel suit, however, will keep the accusations in the media, as well as potentially backfire and make the accused look petty, vindictive-- or that they have something to hide. And there's always a good chance the accused politician could lose the case, which would be defacto guilt and probably devastating to their reputation.
Actually, it's more like "We won't make it, and we won't allow anyone else to make it, because it's ours. We don't care that it might make or lose money for someone else. It's our football, and nobody else gets to play with it."
Come on. It sucks that the show is dead, but Mr. Whedon did make a deal, and he did make a lot of money. When Josh sold Firefly to Fox he was just coming from Buffy and Angel, both very succesful (Buffy more so, of course.) I guarantee his deal was for six figures, if not seven. Universal probably got a better deal since the show wasn't so much of a hit, but it probably wasn't cheap to negotiate either. He could have held out for an option that returns the property back to him after a period of inactivity (though the major studios may or may not have gone for that.) Or better yet, he could have gone to Sci-Fi or another cable channel in the first place and got a deal that would have been more to his favor-- and put the show on in a place that would have a better chance of nurturing it, where a small but loyal fan base could carry a show. If he really felt this was a story that must be told he could have arranged for independant financing, produced the film himself and held on to all of the rights. He did not do that. He went for the major studio money and made a fair deal on their terms, knowing full well that the stakes are higher and most ideas don't make it. Yes, it's theirs and they can say what the future of Firefly/Serenity is... But the studios did invest quite a bit of money and time into productions that had a chance and failed. Why should they be expected to give back the rights? Because a relatively small fan base wants them to? Does Whedon even want them back?
Did the studios give the property a fair shake? Fox didn't, IMHO, but at least it was on the air for a while, which is more than most good ideas can say. Universal promoted it pretty heavily but it still tanked. Maybe this is just an idea that wasn't meant to find a mass audience. Anyway, Whedon's a creative guy, I'm sure he has more projects in the works.
In this case, the modchip actually was used for pirating games, so that's why it would be included in the charges. There are about 2 or 3 stories like this that pop up each year and the editors always seem to omit the fact that software piracy was involved.
Right, but if they are prosecuted for the mod chip as well as the software piracy, that sents a precedent... And makes it much easier to go after others for simply "modding" in the future.
I think Wikipedia is flawed. It is based on NPOV but there is no such thing. This is discussed in depth by post modernistis (who I don't agree with on everything, but they have valid points).
The problem is, that any point of view is in some way a personal point of view, there are always nuances, deletions and viewpoints that stress one thing over another. It is simply not possible to write about something in a neutral way. Even netural is a point of view.
I agree re. journalism... But I'm not sure the argument applies. Wiki is far more "fair and balanced" than, say, Fox News. (Yeah, I know... "Duh.") Or even the local news, which is usually handed to us with a smirk. But Wiki isn't journalism and it's not a news source... It's a point of reference. The enforced neutral tone of Wiki is a layer of protection that keeps articles from being pissing contests of who can shout the loudest (like the average Slashdot thread...) It's a method of keeping things civil, and in that respect I believe it works.
It still isn't a problem -I say, let all viewpoints be recorded, atleast all well written and well sourced viewpoints. I think it is fairer to the reader if a point of view is out in the open rather than hidden behind claimed netrality.
Come on, we know how the web works. Without the editing process the typical entry would be pages and pages long, filled with intentional misinformation and nonsense. Those who actually have something to add won't bother if there are no checks and balances to keep the trolls at bay. And, who's to say what's well written? That's a pretty subjective clause. If you want to see further discourse and points of view about a given subject the google bar is just a click away, and after reading the Wiki article you should have sufficient ammo for your your search.
Wiki is flawed, but we live in a flawed world. I think it serves its purpose well, if you keep in mind that it's an encyclopedia of pop references and what-should-be common knowledge.
In other news: No more animals are used for testing, all animal rights activist rejoice!
Since this is a running joke through this thread, I thought someone should voice a word in defense of animal rights activists. I'm not going to defend PETA-- like the ACLU, they're a misguided lot who've made so many questionable decisions their name is a joke. And of course we should have animal testing and slaughterhouses and leather goods, etc. to sustain and improve our human lives. But animals are in the end living creatures, and these tasks should be done with a reasonable amount of compassion-- and history has shown us that this doesn't always happen unless third parties step in to voice their concerns. (I'd argue that rabbis were among the first animal rights activists, as they enforced kosher slaughter, much more humane than other methods regularly used both past and present.)
By the way, I would prefer testing on animals over humans any day. Of course, animals aren't humans, so there will always have to be volunteers for the last stage of tests and trials. It may sound heartless to zero in on a particular culture, but it will always be the disadvantaged who volunteer-- those so poor that the reward is worth it, or those so far along in an illness that the risk is worth it. Is it okay to test on American and European poor, but not Indian?
Why exactly would Microsoft do damage to Apple? They compete in some areas, yes, but they aren't a direct threat to each other, at least right now. In fact Microsoft makes quite a bit of money selling Office to Mac users.
As far as Apple creating an office alternative-- good luck, hope it works, but I don't think any other Office suites will be gaining a foothold soon. It's difficult enough convincing companies, clients, bosses, schools, whoever that the Mac version of Office is 100% compatible with Windows (which it isn't, but that's another story.) Good luck selling those people and institutions on iOffice.
The moral of the story is that kids will make toys out of anything, and there is essentially no need for Toys for Tots.
Boy, someone's a Grinch.
Sure, Toys For Tots is a superfluous charity, but I really can't see any reason for such bile. I would imagine it's nice for a disadvantaged kid to get a brand new toy or two at Christmas. Might even make him or her actually forget they're disadvantaged.
If do don't agree, cool, put your money elsewhere. But AFAIK the charity's on the up-and-up and does some good. Lashing out at a couple of marines and volunteers like you claim you did does nothing but make you look like an a misanthrope.
"Gamers" didn't make Pong successful, or the Atari 2600, or the NES. Or the Game Boy, for that matter. The reason those consoles were such breakout hits was because people who don't normally play video games (or who are outside the demographic of what we'd consider a "gamer") bought them, and bought them in droves. They were trendy must-have products in their times that got a lot of good press and word-of-mouth, not to mention they were new and original, not upgraded versions of last year's success. And I think the Revolution will do well, because it does seem like a fresh new idea at the right time. They're certainly getting a lot of good advance press.
Catering to "gamers" right now is a dead-end street. Nintendo's not going to succeed by making yet another platform to play Call of Duty 2 on. Better to go after new audiences why may not have even considered buying a game system in the past, and who would hardly consider themselves "gamers." I think there's a huge market for games for "the rest of us"-- after all, it's not hardcore gamers buying millions of dollars worth of crappy games for their cell phones.
There's a lot of money floating around this world. Perhaps your energies would be better spent canvassing funds for the methods you think would improve the third world. Maybe Bill Gates could be hit up for another $100 million? Or perhaps you could pressure the existing charities to reform their inefficient and wasteful management practices? (UNICEF, Red Cross etc. have a lot of money and resources-- unfortunately their methods of distribution tend to be lacking.)
Why do we have to second guess this project's effectiveness? It sounds extremely solid to me. I hate to be trite, but "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." If the $100 laptop was dropped and the funds went to food, water and medicine, these people would be back where they were as soon as the money ran out. If the $100 laptop succeeds, they're potentially giving these students access to education and information that will allow the next generation to solve their own problems and bring their society and economies into the 21st (or at least 20th) century.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, we should know better about extended warranties. Applecare on a Powerbook is $349. That's a pretty steep bet that you're probably going to lose. After all it doesn't cover accidents like drops or spills, which are the primary cause of laptop demise. The second leading problem is hard drive failure, which, if it happens, can be repaired by a tech for less than $200 (cost including the new drive.) Third are logic board or screen problems, which are expensive but not so likely. You may be out $700 if that happens (and it's a small chance), but if you go with Applecare you are certainly out $349 either way.
Remember, you get a year's warranty with purchase. If the model has a defect that will show within the year. If not, it will probably last for three or four years without trouble. The chances of a serious problem (other than drive failure) within the second or third year are pretty slim, and if there's not a problem Apple keeps the cash. If you're anything like me in two, three or four years you'll be eyeing a new notebook anyway, and the $349 you blew on Applecare would go a long way towards a brand new model.
If Applecare was less-- like $100-- I'd say it was good insurance. But right now, it's just a cash cow for Apple.
No games deserve a sequel, this is the number one problem in the gaming industry today.
Stop right there. There are a lot of great game sequels out there, and a lot of games that could use sequels. If the original was fun and had a great story that came to an end too soon, or had an immersive world that could sustain revisiting there's no reason not to revisit it. I'd love another Starcraft or Fallout. Most of the Zeldas, Marios and Metroids are pretty damn good. I'd keep playing Neverwinter Nights expansion packs if there were more, and I'm looking forward to any sequels. Etc...
Reinventing the wheel as far as the game mechanics go can be nice, but sometimes it's fun to just return to a game you love. I look at a great franchise like Final Fantasy as an episodic TV series... After all, they didn't make just one Simpsons and call it quits. A lot of the episodes are duds, as are some Final Fantasy games, but there are great ones too.
And yes, a lot of sequels suck, but just as many if not more original games suck too. We just tend to brush those aside because the disappointment factor isn't as great.
In all honestly, why can't the entertainment industry get it in their head that sequels kill a franchise, especially when NO effort is made to keep them fresh and original. I am sure XMEN 3 will do well this year, but only because they are banking on repeats by past fans, I am also very sure that XMEN 3 will have vapid and underwhelming story line with lots of duplicated scenes and action. I can't wait for the slew of franchise games based on XMEN 3 this year, we all know that games based on movies do well.
X-men is based on-- get this-- a comic book. Superhero comic book movies by their very nature are franchises (not all comic book movies, of course, but I'm not talking about Ghost World.) The fact that the sequels often suck is a problem, but it has more to do with filmmakers (and more precisely, studio heads) who have no affinity for (or who probably never even read) the source material. That doesn't mean a good series of comic book movies can't, or shouldn't be done. Spiderman and Spiderman 2 are pretty good, for example.
Good thoughts but a bit, uh, "last century." I don't think there's much call at this point for a device that simply surfs the web and checks email. We all have computers, after all. Not that the device shouldn't do that, but it needs more... "oomph."
So if you're going to speculate, why not think ahead? Downloadable shows and movies (and Google video, of course) is a given. Google could potentially circumvent DirectTV and cable with broadband pay-per-views.
Or how about a small camera enabling video chat and conferencing, so you could have multiple friends' windows open while you're all watching the same show or looking at the same web page? The teens would kill for something like that.
In the "PC" (Wintel) market, this would be dead in the water, but the Apple market (including the iPod market) is far more trend-driven. People who buy Apple products (including iPods, excluding probably the iPod Nano and the Mac Mini) are relatively likely to be willing to spend hundreds of bucks on some shiny new geegaw, if it's appealing enough.
Seriously, WTF are you going on about? This isn't 1997 any more and the Wintel/Mac stereotypes are really tired. They make for good flamebait, but that's about it... Classifying Mac owners as trendy idiots who throw their money away is ridiculous (before you call me a fanboy I own a PC and a Mac and use them both, and I don't own or care to own an iPod.) And at this point far more PC users own iPods than Mac users. And yes, iPod owners are prone to buy accessories, but if you look at what actually sells (and the prices) the most popular ones make sense-- FM transmitters, protective cases etc. (There are some ridiculous ones, too, but that's a fringe market.)
As far as the product itself-- yes, it's a neat toy (though I get a headache trying to imagine using it.) No, it won't take the world by storm at that price, but it's new tech so it's not really supposed to.
I'd love to buy one, but currently the machine is lacking software. Very badly. Give it software and I'll buy one asap!
I'm thinking the same thing. The list of games that really work (not just "kind of work") is pretty slim. The MAME port, for example, is outdated and buggy (like, v.34 I think-- could be wrong) and doesn't even support all of the roms from that version. Ditto Playstation, SNES, NEo Geo. I really want to like the GP2x but it's just not there yet for the casual gamer.
I hope development continues, and I know it's kind of a vicious circle in that hobbyist development won't progress at a decent pace unless there's an appreciative audience, but the non-programmer gamers won't be buying the device in numbers until the games are there. I'm in the latter group, of course, and unfortunately I can't justify the expense for an object that's not that useful just to "support the scene."
Hopefully, they'll find some way to knock down the memory usage. A couple of widgets (weather, stocks, iCal) were killing my 1Gb Powerbook.
You are aware that you can close individual widgets, right?
Unfortunately the strip mall/downtown "specialty store" is going to be the casualty of on-line shopping. Keep in mind, though, it's always a risky venture to open a shop like that, whether 1976 or 2006 (the only thing more risky is opening a restaurant.) You're selling paintball equiptment and skateboards, both trendy items that go in and out of favor. Your clientelle is most likely primarily 15-25 year old men, a pretty transient age group-- they tend to move away, or lose interest, or whatever and don't make for the most loyal of customers. And the biggest factor is location, of course-- your potential customers are pretty much those who live within a twenty to thrity minute radius, so if the 15-25 year old men in the vicinity aren't into skateboards and paintball you're S.O.L.
RSS is useful if you hit a lot of webpages every day. It's an efficient way of being alerted to new articles or such. Instead of spending 2 hours loading up websites and glancing at them to see if there's anything new (assuming your memory is that great to start with, otherwise you'd feel a lot of deja vu), RSS readers aggregate all the new items for you to chug through in 5 minutes.
Yes... But I don't think the bulk of internet users care about efficiency. For every power user who wants or needs news articles fed to them in real time, there are dozens if not hundreds more who just want to browse as a means of procrastination or zoning out at work.
Not that RSS can't be an invaluable tool, but I can't see it "going mainstream", and I certainly can't see standalone readers finding wide acceptance. It's just easier (and much more mindless) for most people to open the browser and check out what's new on Fark.
I have one word for you, Somalia.
There are dozens of "third world" countries that are impoverished but civilized and even peaceful, and there are millions of kids in these countries who would benefit from this program. Much of South America, for example, or parts of Central and Eastern Asia (from Bangladesh and even parts of India, to Cambodia and Vietnam and then all the way to the Phillipines.) Africa has a lot of trouble spots but there are relatively peaceful countries like Kenya that could use this too.
Selecting a random sample from the population is often the hardest part of any survey, but can be done correctly. To flat out say that using samples means that the data is irrelevant is completely inaccurate.
Which is why you should not put any faith in polls and surveys. They assume that a small number of people are the perfect representations of their demographics, and a few people who go "against the grain" for one reason or another (not all of us are living stereotypes) can tip the scales heavily. Seven of the ten elderly Hispanic women polled happen to use e-mail, suddenly it's a "surprising trend." That means their personal circumstances- family, jobs, whatever- led them to own computers, not that 70% of elderly Hispanic women across the country are online.
Hell, surveys are based on people who don't mind answering a few (sometimes very personal) questions when cold-called at home during dinner (or accosted by a guy with a clipboard at the mall, or whatever.) Personally I don't know a single person who would bother, even my grandmother would hang up the phone. How does that factor in to the polling process? I mean, those who would opt-in to be hassled are certainly of a different mentality than those who wouldn't, is there really an accurate formula to account for the latter since the survey purports to represent them too?
That is what they should have said about "Firefly".
I don't know if was a Time critic's "Show of the Year", but Firefly got a lot of great reviews. So did a lot of other shows that died too young, including two of my personal favorites "Freaks and Geeks" and "Greg the Bunny." Good reviews don't have much, if anything to do with ratings on the big five (or six or whatever) networks
A better lesson that could be learned is that Sci-Fi stuck with a good show that good middling-to-decent ratings (actually, they're great for the Sci Fi channel) and now it's building a loyal fanbase that will be there for years to come. Maybe Whedon (who has enough experience that he should know how things work) should've taken Firefly to cable in the first place.
If one core is free to take care of background tasks (antivirus, email, etc.) then I'd say every game takes advantage.
I suggest GIMP be renamed "Baby Guts"
"GIMP" is already a derogatory term for a someone who's crippled (and it usually implies some sort of mental defect too.) IMO changing the name to "Baby Guts" would be an improvement.
This shouldn't be a troll. Arnold Schwartzenegger's support of the bill should be questioned. I mean, come on... He's killed literally thousands of people in his movies, almost always with a smile and snide comeback. Here's a man who made a career- as well as hundreds of millions of dollars- from some of the most violent action films the world has ever seen... Huge box office hits, often R-rated but always aimed squarely at the teenage male demographic. Quite a few of them led to very violent video games, btw... including but not limited to the Terminators to the Predator franchise.
Arnold is the action star of the 80's and early 90's. He would not be governor today if not for his roles in Conan, Commando and The Terminator. He was elected because he's famous and because of his virile action star, get-things-done image (in contrast to his milquetoast predecessor.) Who the hell is he to come out against game violence? Didn't he just star in (and executive produce) Terminator 3 like two or three years ago? You think he really feels this way, or is he doing whatever he can to get the Democrats to support him for a second term? Would he sign the same bill if it advocated tighter restrictions on violence in movies?
These plantiffs are suing because the DVD's arent there in "one-day" always. Isn't that the postal services fault?
I think the complaint is that their turnaround (receive disk A, send disk B) is often not within one business day as they claim. From my experience (and plenty of anecdotal evidence, here and elsewhere) they seem to deliberately slow down deliveries... Often if I would send three disks back at the same time one or two would be "received" a day before the others, and the replacements would come a day or two or three apart. That's Netflix's fault, not the post office.
Libel and slander aren't criminal matters. "Libel laws" are precedents set by civil trials. You don't go to jail for libel, but the offended party can (and often do) sue for damages. The bulk of past judgements have shown that public figures have less grounds for a case than the average citizen... This is strangely not the case for corporations.
Politicians don't usually pursue their enemies for libel because it's not in their best interest to do so. It's better for a politician to be aloof and ignore outlandish charges... Hoping to make the accuser look like a crackpot. A libel suit, however, will keep the accusations in the media, as well as potentially backfire and make the accused look petty, vindictive-- or that they have something to hide. And there's always a good chance the accused politician could lose the case, which would be defacto guilt and probably devastating to their reputation.
Actually, it's more like "We won't make it, and we won't allow anyone else to make it, because it's ours. We don't care that it might make or lose money for someone else. It's our football, and nobody else gets to play with it."
Come on. It sucks that the show is dead, but Mr. Whedon did make a deal, and he did make a lot of money. When Josh sold Firefly to Fox he was just coming from Buffy and Angel, both very succesful (Buffy more so, of course.) I guarantee his deal was for six figures, if not seven. Universal probably got a better deal since the show wasn't so much of a hit, but it probably wasn't cheap to negotiate either. He could have held out for an option that returns the property back to him after a period of inactivity (though the major studios may or may not have gone for that.) Or better yet, he could have gone to Sci-Fi or another cable channel in the first place and got a deal that would have been more to his favor-- and put the show on in a place that would have a better chance of nurturing it, where a small but loyal fan base could carry a show. If he really felt this was a story that must be told he could have arranged for independant financing, produced the film himself and held on to all of the rights. He did not do that. He went for the major studio money and made a fair deal on their terms, knowing full well that the stakes are higher and most ideas don't make it. Yes, it's theirs and they can say what the future of Firefly/Serenity is... But the studios did invest quite a bit of money and time into productions that had a chance and failed. Why should they be expected to give back the rights? Because a relatively small fan base wants them to? Does Whedon even want them back?
Did the studios give the property a fair shake? Fox didn't, IMHO, but at least it was on the air for a while, which is more than most good ideas can say. Universal promoted it pretty heavily but it still tanked. Maybe this is just an idea that wasn't meant to find a mass audience. Anyway, Whedon's a creative guy, I'm sure he has more projects in the works.
In this case, the modchip actually was used for pirating games, so that's why it would be included in the charges. There are about 2 or 3 stories like this that pop up each year and the editors always seem to omit the fact that software piracy was involved.
Right, but if they are prosecuted for the mod chip as well as the software piracy, that sents a precedent... And makes it much easier to go after others for simply "modding" in the future.
That's what's scary.
I think Wikipedia is flawed. It is based on NPOV but there is no such thing. This is discussed in depth by post modernistis (who I don't agree with on everything, but they have valid points).
The problem is, that any point of view is in some way a personal point of view, there are always nuances, deletions and viewpoints that stress one thing over another. It is simply not possible to write about something in a neutral way. Even netural is a point of view.
I agree re. journalism... But I'm not sure the argument applies. Wiki is far more "fair and balanced" than, say, Fox News. (Yeah, I know... "Duh.") Or even the local news, which is usually handed to us with a smirk. But Wiki isn't journalism and it's not a news source... It's a point of reference. The enforced neutral tone of Wiki is a layer of protection that keeps articles from being pissing contests of who can shout the loudest (like the average Slashdot thread...) It's a method of keeping things civil, and in that respect I believe it works.
It still isn't a problem -I say, let all viewpoints be recorded, atleast all well written and well sourced viewpoints. I think it is fairer to the reader if a point of view is out in the open rather than hidden behind claimed netrality.
Come on, we know how the web works. Without the editing process the typical entry would be pages and pages long, filled with intentional misinformation and nonsense. Those who actually have something to add won't bother if there are no checks and balances to keep the trolls at bay. And, who's to say what's well written? That's a pretty subjective clause. If you want to see further discourse and points of view about a given subject the google bar is just a click away, and after reading the Wiki article you should have sufficient ammo for your your search.
Wiki is flawed, but we live in a flawed world. I think it serves its purpose well, if you keep in mind that it's an encyclopedia of pop references and what-should-be common knowledge.
In other news: No more animals are used for testing, all animal rights activist rejoice!
Since this is a running joke through this thread, I thought someone should voice a word in defense of animal rights activists. I'm not going to defend PETA-- like the ACLU, they're a misguided lot who've made so many questionable decisions their name is a joke. And of course we should have animal testing and slaughterhouses and leather goods, etc. to sustain and improve our human lives. But animals are in the end living creatures, and these tasks should be done with a reasonable amount of compassion-- and history has shown us that this doesn't always happen unless third parties step in to voice their concerns. (I'd argue that rabbis were among the first animal rights activists, as they enforced kosher slaughter, much more humane than other methods regularly used both past and present.)
By the way, I would prefer testing on animals over humans any day. Of course, animals aren't humans, so there will always have to be volunteers for the last stage of tests and trials. It may sound heartless to zero in on a particular culture, but it will always be the disadvantaged who volunteer-- those so poor that the reward is worth it, or those so far along in an illness that the risk is worth it. Is it okay to test on American and European poor, but not Indian?
Why exactly would Microsoft do damage to Apple? They compete in some areas, yes, but they aren't a direct threat to each other, at least right now. In fact Microsoft makes quite a bit of money selling Office to Mac users.
As far as Apple creating an office alternative-- good luck, hope it works, but I don't think any other Office suites will be gaining a foothold soon. It's difficult enough convincing companies, clients, bosses, schools, whoever that the Mac version of Office is 100% compatible with Windows (which it isn't, but that's another story.) Good luck selling those people and institutions on iOffice.
The moral of the story is that kids will make toys out of anything, and there is essentially no need for Toys for Tots.
Boy, someone's a Grinch.
Sure, Toys For Tots is a superfluous charity, but I really can't see any reason for such bile. I would imagine it's nice for a disadvantaged kid to get a brand new toy or two at Christmas. Might even make him or her actually forget they're disadvantaged.
If do don't agree, cool, put your money elsewhere. But AFAIK the charity's on the up-and-up and does some good. Lashing out at a couple of marines and volunteers like you claim you did does nothing but make you look like an a misanthrope.
Maps.msn.com existed long before Google maps. Sure, they probably stole the idea from Mapquest, but don't give Google credit for that one.
"Gamers" didn't make Pong successful, or the Atari 2600, or the NES. Or the Game Boy, for that matter. The reason those consoles were such breakout hits was because people who don't normally play video games (or who are outside the demographic of what we'd consider a "gamer") bought them, and bought them in droves. They were trendy must-have products in their times that got a lot of good press and word-of-mouth, not to mention they were new and original, not upgraded versions of last year's success. And I think the Revolution will do well, because it does seem like a fresh new idea at the right time. They're certainly getting a lot of good advance press.
Catering to "gamers" right now is a dead-end street. Nintendo's not going to succeed by making yet another platform to play Call of Duty 2 on. Better to go after new audiences why may not have even considered buying a game system in the past, and who would hardly consider themselves "gamers." I think there's a huge market for games for "the rest of us"-- after all, it's not hardcore gamers buying millions of dollars worth of crappy games for their cell phones.
There's a lot of money floating around this world. Perhaps your energies would be better spent canvassing funds for the methods you think would improve the third world. Maybe Bill Gates could be hit up for another $100 million? Or perhaps you could pressure the existing charities to reform their inefficient and wasteful management practices? (UNICEF, Red Cross etc. have a lot of money and resources-- unfortunately their methods of distribution tend to be lacking.)
Why do we have to second guess this project's effectiveness? It sounds extremely solid to me. I hate to be trite, but "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." If the $100 laptop was dropped and the funds went to food, water and medicine, these people would be back where they were as soon as the money ran out. If the $100 laptop succeeds, they're potentially giving these students access to education and information that will allow the next generation to solve their own problems and bring their society and economies into the 21st (or at least 20th) century.