I don't think MS is in the same position they were twelve years ago. Microsoft Live still has yet to compete with Google (even in mindshare). I think people are starting to believe (thanks to various communities like Open Source) that MS needs to actually put up or shut up. I think gone are the days of 'announcing' a competitive product and delivering one (and increasingly, a better one).
Combining and iPod, Newton and cell phone is an interesting idea, but we have seen that there is some consumer resistance to combining gadgets.
Combining gadgets is the key. I don't think anyone has a problem with convergence. The problems lies in the lack of most companies abilities to merge two devices. The cellphone PDA is starting to shape up, but not with a few years of clunkiness, I think. Verizon V-Cast? No, I don't think I'm going to pay for my music over and over again.
1. There's a difference. Enron was purposefully and illegally cooking their accounting books and they got caught. Apple themselves noted a discrepancy between practice and what should be reported to shareholders. Enron executives bilked shareholders out of billions of dollars. Apple granted stock options backdated at the lowest price and did not include them on a report.
2. One company self-reporting a problem does not make a trend. There are thousands of companies, and statistically I would wager that there are more than a few that have also reported similar discrepancies over the course of their existence. Thus, there is nothing stating that the CEO should have to leave his company for discrepancies filed by his own company (and the finance department, no less). Your perception is not reality. While I agree that the 'public' won't tolerate being ripped off, they also should know that this doesn't fit the 'being ripped off' scenario. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think this is such a scenario.
It doesn't cut the cornea, and it's the only surgery allowed for prospective and current Navy pilots. Midshipmen (who do not yet have careers as pilots) who want to fly but cannot see have to elect to have the surgery and accept the outcome if it goes awry (i.e. not by military doctors and not on the Navy's dime). We briefed these midshipmen on the risks and responsibilities, and they elect to pay and have the surgery.
It's not that painful, and they are generally out the next day or so. Your vision will be watery for a while as your brain adjusts to the new focus of your eyes, and you take steroid shots. Three months minimum after the surgery (when your vision is considered stable) you are evaluated by a Navy doctor (as part of your precommissioning aviation physical) and they are the ones that determine if you are a go for flight school. Note: your vision does not have to be perfect (20/30 or better, I think), and the strict vision requirements are for pilots, NOT NFOs (Naval Flight Officers... the back seat driver like Gooseman).
This is not new news, but it's an interesting discussion (I recently taught as an NROTC instructor, so I know the ropes).
I agree in an idealistic case. In reality, the truth is that the majority believe their own life to be more important even in some small degree to anyone else's. In very few instances do we see those that equate their lives to equal or lesser value. In fact, some cases, there are those who gladly accept the fact that their lives are equal to others, and that their ability to some extent determines whether or not they indeed trade their lives for those of others (example: firefighters and soldiers). But I'm giving both general and specific arguments. In general, I think that a large number of people that believe their life is more important than the next person. It could be due to the individuality of our culture, or the societal shift that puts personal reward above community/society/family. It certainly poses a larger question of what really is "equal in God's eyes"? By our very nature, is it difficult for us to see equality for what it is? What is the value of life, and therefore, at what level is it equal?
Sorry if I drag on a bit. It's a good discussion!
Actually, man states this. I don't think God/Allah/Buddha/Taoism/Nature has the same point of view. All men are NOT created equal. Opportunity is not what makes one man great from another. Clearly nature (under her normal course) chooses the one best adapted. To quote Aristotle, "The greatest inequality is to make unequal things equal". I'm not refuting your statement that the man is assumed to be >= homeless child. There is clearly an inequality, and that inequality is letting man make the choice rather than ability (or nature, if you prefer).
The equality you refer to is specifically "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We have equal rights, but not equal ability. And who is to say that the child has greater or less ability than the man if we do not recognize the equal rights (which is what your real point was, correct?)?
They're trying to hype up the new movie 'The Lawsuit Code'.. wait. Wrong story.
Btw, can anyone name a great lawyer (as in historically)? I've thought of Lincoln, but he's remembered as a great president first.
Because sequels suck, but if you pretend you're doing a story BEFORE it was a good story, it had to start good, right? Right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Hints that sequels suck:
1) Big giant man-eating shark sounds like godzilla
2) Second movie is "so long" that it has to be split into two movies
3) Use same plot, just change name of bad guys from 'Klingons' to 'Stretchy face people'
4) Use clones (which also use cloned plot devices.. never as good as the original)
5) Has more product placements than the Super Bowl
Regardless, at least the Ron has an idea to work on the story himself.
Re:It's a problem with the videogames NOT the movi
on
Why Game Movies Stink
·
· Score: 1
I mean, ask yourself, how exactly would YOU make an interesting movie out of Halo, whose "star" is a faceless, anonymous, killing machine with virtually no backstory (and working under the studio requirement that he has to occupy most of the screen time, with a large number of pure mindless action scenes)?
The Terminator perhaps?
Certainly, I derived a lot of enjoyment from the cut-scenes in Halo (since that was the only time the Master Chief ever interacted). Actually, there were quite few games that relied on the cinematic cut-scene to reward the player for completion (from Ms. Pac-Man to Final Fantasy VII), but with the pursuit of realistic imagery, the most crucial elements get left behind: story.
Adaptive storytelling in games is a hard problem. Most games bank on a fairly linear story with a few branches that end up at the same leaf, providing the illusion of 'choice', when it was just a means to get to the same end to prevent excessive branching of plot. David Freeman's idea is that screenwriters should learn "emotioneering" to better script games and come up with good story. Personally, I think that's just a band-aid, or using a hammer in place of a laser scalpel. Ok, I'm getting off on a tangent. Big summary: game makers look for fun and player engagement; movie makers look for entertaining, thoughtful and passive engagement (in theory). One does not translate into the other.
Studies are NOT statistics. Studies are NOT based on truth. Studies are generally sponsored by a company in the companies interest OR they are requested by the government or some government to explore some area of interest. This is why you have studies that say "studies show that people who read Slashdot are more likely to be geeks and other websurfers" or "studies indicate that being sleep-deprived is bad". In general, studies are gathered thoughts or ideas from area 'experts', and generally NOT based on measurable facts. Thus, studies cost less.
JMHO on studies. Notice that studies report 'findings'. Maybe they are more like blogs....
_insert new corporate brand_ is so cool it's just like _insert new biological controversy_. _insert older biological phenomenon_ was the old way of doing things in _insert old corporate brand_.
FTA: "Does OS X really offer any applications that would entice me to purchase a new Mac and put up with the tedium of Boot Camp?"
Let me see... if I have OS X, then I don't need MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, a photo manipulation program, a music media player, a dvd player (with codec), a movie making program, or a music program. I don't need to dl a less sucky browser. Just because SIMILAR apps are available for Windows doesn't mean that you HAVE to use them. This gives you the choice of using what you like. It's not about "it's got the same stuff". Go play with the OS for a little bit. He did get the games thing right, but a monkey could've figured that out.
There are a couple of apps that I have for both XP and OS X, and quite frankly, I like the way OS X operates and the way those ported programs run under OS X. Let's not confuse need with want.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think MS is in the same position they were twelve years ago. Microsoft Live still has yet to compete with Google (even in mindshare). I think people are starting to believe (thanks to various communities like Open Source) that MS needs to actually put up or shut up. I think gone are the days of 'announcing' a competitive product and delivering one (and increasingly, a better one).
It's obvious. It's a clickwheel without the patent implications!
Combining and iPod, Newton and cell phone is an interesting idea, but we have seen that there is some consumer resistance to combining gadgets.
Combining gadgets is the key. I don't think anyone has a problem with convergence. The problems lies in the lack of most companies abilities to merge two devices. The cellphone PDA is starting to shape up, but not with a few years of clunkiness, I think. Verizon V-Cast? No, I don't think I'm going to pay for my music over and over again.
1. There's a difference. Enron was purposefully and illegally cooking their accounting books and they got caught. Apple themselves noted a discrepancy between practice and what should be reported to shareholders. Enron executives bilked shareholders out of billions of dollars. Apple granted stock options backdated at the lowest price and did not include them on a report. 2. One company self-reporting a problem does not make a trend. There are thousands of companies, and statistically I would wager that there are more than a few that have also reported similar discrepancies over the course of their existence. Thus, there is nothing stating that the CEO should have to leave his company for discrepancies filed by his own company (and the finance department, no less). Your perception is not reality. While I agree that the 'public' won't tolerate being ripped off, they also should know that this doesn't fit the 'being ripped off' scenario. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think this is such a scenario.
Making a movie about something you love: priceless.
don't need to show up to class to teach like students don't need to show up to learn....
It's called PRK.
It doesn't cut the cornea, and it's the only surgery allowed for prospective and current Navy pilots. Midshipmen (who do not yet have careers as pilots) who want to fly but cannot see have to elect to have the surgery and accept the outcome if it goes awry (i.e. not by military doctors and not on the Navy's dime). We briefed these midshipmen on the risks and responsibilities, and they elect to pay and have the surgery.
It's not that painful, and they are generally out the next day or so. Your vision will be watery for a while as your brain adjusts to the new focus of your eyes, and you take steroid shots. Three months minimum after the surgery (when your vision is considered stable) you are evaluated by a Navy doctor (as part of your precommissioning aviation physical) and they are the ones that determine if you are a go for flight school. Note: your vision does not have to be perfect (20/30 or better, I think), and the strict vision requirements are for pilots, NOT NFOs (Naval Flight Officers... the back seat driver like Gooseman). This is not new news, but it's an interesting discussion (I recently taught as an NROTC instructor, so I know the ropes).
I agree in an idealistic case. In reality, the truth is that the majority believe their own life to be more important even in some small degree to anyone else's. In very few instances do we see those that equate their lives to equal or lesser value. In fact, some cases, there are those who gladly accept the fact that their lives are equal to others, and that their ability to some extent determines whether or not they indeed trade their lives for those of others (example: firefighters and soldiers). But I'm giving both general and specific arguments. In general, I think that a large number of people that believe their life is more important than the next person. It could be due to the individuality of our culture, or the societal shift that puts personal reward above community/society/family. It certainly poses a larger question of what really is "equal in God's eyes"? By our very nature, is it difficult for us to see equality for what it is? What is the value of life, and therefore, at what level is it equal? Sorry if I drag on a bit. It's a good discussion!
Actually, man states this. I don't think God/Allah/Buddha/Taoism/Nature has the same point of view. All men are NOT created equal. Opportunity is not what makes one man great from another. Clearly nature (under her normal course) chooses the one best adapted. To quote Aristotle, "The greatest inequality is to make unequal things equal". I'm not refuting your statement that the man is assumed to be >= homeless child. There is clearly an inequality, and that inequality is letting man make the choice rather than ability (or nature, if you prefer). The equality you refer to is specifically "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We have equal rights, but not equal ability. And who is to say that the child has greater or less ability than the man if we do not recognize the equal rights (which is what your real point was, correct?)?
Don't forget to fill up!
They're trying to hype up the new movie 'The Lawsuit Code'.. wait. Wrong story. Btw, can anyone name a great lawyer (as in historically)? I've thought of Lincoln, but he's remembered as a great president first.
someone is actually trying to do something important. A time machine would be better.
Thanks! You just made me laugh my ass off. I was just thinking that they should carry around an Alienware 10lb laptop for comparison.
I think they are trying to recoup the lost money on the "Nano scratch crisis of 2005" with the premium. :)
Register... wait. Wasn't that a big part of Rising Stars? Chuck Norris should also register his feet.
It's ok. We have fake CEOs, and CEO/CFOs who make fake profits.
Because sequels suck, but if you pretend you're doing a story BEFORE it was a good story, it had to start good, right? Right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Hints that sequels suck:
1) Big giant man-eating shark sounds like godzilla
2) Second movie is "so long" that it has to be split into two movies
3) Use same plot, just change name of bad guys from 'Klingons' to 'Stretchy face people'
4) Use clones (which also use cloned plot devices.. never as good as the original)
5) Has more product placements than the Super Bowl
Regardless, at least the Ron has an idea to work on the story himself.
The Terminator perhaps?
Certainly, I derived a lot of enjoyment from the cut-scenes in Halo (since that was the only time the Master Chief ever interacted). Actually, there were quite few games that relied on the cinematic cut-scene to reward the player for completion (from Ms. Pac-Man to Final Fantasy VII), but with the pursuit of realistic imagery, the most crucial elements get left behind: story.
Adaptive storytelling in games is a hard problem. Most games bank on a fairly linear story with a few branches that end up at the same leaf, providing the illusion of 'choice', when it was just a means to get to the same end to prevent excessive branching of plot. David Freeman's idea is that screenwriters should learn "emotioneering" to better script games and come up with good story. Personally, I think that's just a band-aid, or using a hammer in place of a laser scalpel. Ok, I'm getting off on a tangent. Big summary: game makers look for fun and player engagement; movie makers look for entertaining, thoughtful and passive engagement (in theory). One does not translate into the other.
Except that Windows is not addictive, and withdrawal symptoms are mild.
Bloggers are just like journalists, only without any sort of journalistic integrity. Oh wait....
Studies are NOT statistics. Studies are NOT based on truth. Studies are generally sponsored by a company in the companies interest OR they are requested by the government or some government to explore some area of interest. This is why you have studies that say "studies show that people who read Slashdot are more likely to be geeks and other websurfers" or "studies indicate that being sleep-deprived is bad". In general, studies are gathered thoughts or ideas from area 'experts', and generally NOT based on measurable facts. Thus, studies cost less.
JMHO on studies. Notice that studies report 'findings'. Maybe they are more like blogs....
"Call Mom"
"Call Tom?"
"No. Call Mom."
"Call Rob?"
"No. CAHLL, MAAHM."
"Call Craig?"
"What? No. I'll do it myself, you stupid useless feature."
_insert new corporate brand_ is so cool it's just like _insert new biological controversy_. _insert older biological phenomenon_ was the old way of doing things in _insert old corporate brand_.
Didn't we use Madlibs during the dotcom bubble?
is so cool it's just like . was the old way of doing things in . Didn't we use Madlibs during the dotcom bubble?
FTA: "Does OS X really offer any applications that would entice me to purchase a new Mac and put up with the tedium of Boot Camp?" Let me see... if I have OS X, then I don't need MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, a photo manipulation program, a music media player, a dvd player (with codec), a movie making program, or a music program. I don't need to dl a less sucky browser. Just because SIMILAR apps are available for Windows doesn't mean that you HAVE to use them. This gives you the choice of using what you like. It's not about "it's got the same stuff". Go play with the OS for a little bit. He did get the games thing right, but a monkey could've figured that out. There are a couple of apps that I have for both XP and OS X, and quite frankly, I like the way OS X operates and the way those ported programs run under OS X. Let's not confuse need with want.