Posts by Thorfkin

My List

I limited my list to movies that were so bad I had genuine trouble finishing the movie awake.

Birdemic: shock and terror

Radar Secret Service

Mac and Me

The Room

The Horror of Spider Island

Hercules v.s. Karate

A Boy and his Dog

I failed miserably on Mac and Me. I tried twice to watch that pile of steaming rectal discharge but in both cases I passed out and woke up hours later. Good as any tranquilizer.

3D Popularity

3D itself is more popular than 10%. According to the MPAA statistics, 21% of box office sales in 2010 were 3d. That's up 91% from 2009. I couldn't find any statistics for 2011. Still, that doesn't include any adjustments for the number of movies that were released without 3d versions. If you remove sales of 2d only shows from the results I suspect 3d showings would prove to be quite a lot more popular than 21% when a 3d showing is available. What's not popular is high price. There are some 3d TV's available for lower cost but in general 3d televisions do cost a lot more than non-3d televisions. I think that's why they only sold 10% of the market. I.E. The difference between a $7 movie ticket and a $10 3d movie ticket is nothing to most people but the difference between $1500 for an HD television and $2500 for the same model with 3d will make most people balk. Not to mention the $100 price tag for each pair of glasses. I personally do own a 3d Panasonic plasma television and I love it. So do all of my friends and family who have ever sat and watched a 3d movie with me. It's the cost of entry for the tech that's slowing the uptake not the tech itself.

Target Usage

I wouldn't expect these ultrabooks to sell very well. I think there are three usage categories that require specific hardware: Basic, Professional, and Gamer. Your basic profile includes things like web surfing, simple photo editing, and maybe older 2d games. You don't need a lot of RAM or a powerful GPU to accomplish these things. The Professional category is where you need a lot of ram and a decent CPU but not necessarily a decent GPU. That would be stuff like photoshop or render work where you don't actually have to have a decent GPU but it helps. And then there's the gamer usage where you absolutely need a decent GPU and RAM, and usually a decent CPU.

My instinct tells me that these ultrabooks will have a decent CPU and will have enough ram to run more than what you would expect from a netbook. But frankly Intel just sucks at GPUs and that means these ultrabooks will fall into that Professional usage category. Your average person will see the "three times higher than a netbook" price tag on these and realize that these machines aren't going to make surfing e-mail much faster than that $300 netbook will. IE "Why pay $1000 for a machine that can do the same things for me that a decent netbook or just a regular cheapo $500 laptop can do?".

Gamers are going to realize right away that they need a decent nVidia or ATI GPU in order to run anything current.

Most professionals will realize that they can find a decent 17 inch laptop with a decent GPU for only a few hundred more than the cost of an Ultrabook. That makes the ultrabook target audience very small. Pretty much limited to business owners who need extreme mobility or people who have enough extra cash that they don't mind the added expense. I just don't seeing these selling a lot unless Intel gives in and drops the price on the ultrabook chips to something close to a netbook chipset.

Aggression vs. Violence

I remember reading, a few months back, about some findings that had shown that playing violent video games did increase aggression for a short period after playing but that said aggression did not translate to any actual violent behaviour.

However I agree with John Carmack. My own experience has been that most violent video games help me to exorcise my anger in a safe environment.

Customer Relations Fail

Looks like I am back to boycotting Ubisoft again. I sent them a long letter last time explaining that I would not purchase their products while they continued the ridiculous Internet connection requirement policy. For a while they appeared to have learned from their mistake but it looks like they are back to the same old crap.

I require an absolute guarantee on the future playability of the game in exchange for my $60. The requirement of an Internet connection to play offline games compromises that guarantee. Since the only way to make them understand this is to hurt them in the pocketbook, my only option is to boycott their games and make sure they are well aware of the fact that they have lost my entertainment money to one of their competitors.

Does Good

Depends on how you interpret the statement "not every browser does good" in your own mind. When I read that statement I think of "good" as a metaphor for "stable" and "Secure" which I wouldn't personally attribute to internet Explorer, and "Compatible" which I wouldn't attribute to either Chrome or Opera.

I do like the business model statements you quoted above. I think more companies than just open source software providers have forgotten these basic truths. Value means everything to the customer. Value is what customers pay for. Video game companies packing their products with ridiculously limiting DRM is what specifically comes to my own mind.

Since Mozilla doesn't sell their software and their business model is based largely on user install base I think this is probably a fairly effective marketing campaign. Consider the alternatives. Should they claim their browser is faster? More secure? When was the last time you actually believed anything at all that came out of the PR department of any corporation? When any company claims their product is better than their competitors I instantly distrust it and I wouldn't be surprised if that were representative of most people's perception of marketing these days.

I kinda like it when a company markets from philosophical or emotional position. "Who wants to pretend their hand is a gun?" - Sony's Move marketing campaign was awesome.

@US Law In Contradiction

@US Law In Contradiction

It may appear to be in contradiction but it is actually not. The law states that if you attack someone, you can be charged with assault. The law does not say that you will be prosecuted, only that you can be prosecuted. In cases where an individual's life is in immediate danger, the judge will usually make an exception in regards to prosecution. If someone tries to kill you, and you shoot and kill them in defense, you are still guilty of aggravated assault and manslaughter. You CAN be sent to prison for defending your own life. However the system will usually choose not to prosecute you under the grounds that your life was in immediate danger and that your response was justified. This information is emphasized in most concealed weapons courses. The officer who taught mine was very specific on this matter. If you choose to defend your own life, you have to be absolutely sure you have no other choice in the matter. And that's really the issue here as far as the law is concerned. Can you walk away? Well if a lunatic is chasing after you with an axe then. . .

Look at the old man's situation. Did he really have to strike the kid to get him to shut off his phone? Was his life in immediate danger? He could probably argue before the judge that he was convinced it was but the judge probably won't accept that as justification. He chose to commit assault and it is unlikely that the judge will consider his actions to be justified. Couldn't the old man have simply pointed the kid out to a flight attendant?

When that would-be terrorist was trying to light his shoe on fire the matter was different. It was obvious to the surrounding passengers that something untoward was afoot (Sorry for the bad pun BTW). The terrorist's actions put their lives in immediate danger and being stuck in a plane there was no possibility of escape. Their actions were justified. The old man's weren't.

Not that I like the situation. I personally think the kid deserved a good walloping and if it were my choice I'd let the gent who hit him walk free. I do hope the airline decides to prosecute the kid's parents for his violation of federal law. Maybe just enough to get the parents to properly discipline their child.

Timing Is Indeed Everything

I purchased my 3d TV a month ago on Black Friday. Previously I had been using a 10+ year old rear projection set that only supported component connections and was getting blurrier by the day. When I was shopping for a new set it was apparent that I could get a non-3d set for a lot cheaper than a 3d set. However when I started looking at the quality of the picture, by the time I got to the sets that had a good picture quality, the price difference between 3d and non-3d seemed almost negligible. That and I already owned a PS3 and I wanted to play some of my games in 3d. The place I got my set was running a package deal that included extra glasses plus the wiring plus a decent receiver to handle the device switching so I decided to go with it.

So far I don't regret my decision. I own a couple 3d movies now and I enjoy the 3d games I play :)

I agree with Stucs201. The right questions make all the difference to a survey like this. I also agree with Peter Coffin, The bundle deal with everything included really did help make the decision :)

DSLR Design

Ya know I really miss the side of body lense design Sony used in the DSC-FXXX line of cameras. I own an F828 and I continue to love the thing. I was really hoping they would proceed to a DSLR version but sadly Sony discontinued this line of cameras.

I really wish someone would make a decent side of body DSLR to fill the gap left by Sony with this line because the center body lense style just feels uncomfortable to me.

Private vs. Public

I think Michael Dell taking the company private again is an excellent idea. Having worked for a lot of publicly traded companies I have come to the conclusions that a company's growth and quality really starts to decline shortly after it begins trading publicly.

With a publicly traded company, the CEO is designated by the investors holding controlling interest in the company. Said CEO is required to take direction from the company's chief investors. Investors all too often have no real idea what is actually good for the company. They tend to be driven purely by short term quarterly gains. This leads to the CEO having to do thing he or she knows will ultimately harm the company's long term viability in order to justify his job to the company's chief investors. So every quarter is spent scrambling to meet the projected quarterly gains so that the stock price doesn't fall. While this is not invariably the case, my impression is that it represents the general rule.

Back when Dell was founded, its direction was singular. Michael Dell knew what he needed to do to grow his company. Once the company started trading publicly, even though he is the chief investor, he is still subject to the pressure of having to sacrifice long term profitability in order to keep the stock price from falling. Going private again allows Dell to make the decisions it needs to make to return to its true glory days.

I personally feel this way about all publicly traded companies. It really upset me when Newegg announced their IPO. To me it means the quality of service will start to level off and eventually start its long fall to obscurity.

Physical Media

It's nice to see an article that mirrors my own view these matters. When I buy music or movies I insist on physical media. I am fine with online distribution for rentals or for streaming but for purchases, unless it’s some cheap $2 expansion or something that I won’t really miss, I demand a physical copy. When it comes right down to it, media companies really cannot be trusted long-term. Look at the PlayStation 3 and its Install Other OS feature, the company actually stated that they would not disable the feature in a future firmware release and then they went and did it anyway a few years later when they deemed the feature to be a potential threat to them. Media companies always do what is in their own best interest regardless of any prior promises to the contrary. They have a long nasty history of taking actions to protect themselves that ultimately screw the consumer as an "unfortunate" side effect. I reading reports that indicate the world is moving to online distribution but as long as I live I will stand by reliance on physical media. As long as I take care of my investment it will continue to be there for me years from now.

On a related subject, you also brought up the subject of a new physical media format to replace CDs. On principal this is an excellent idea. The only problem I see with this is greedy media company’s tendency to rely heavily on digital rights management. When the CD standard was ratified, said companies weren’t so concerned about “protecting their interests” and so we ended up with a reliable open standard that balances the needs of the provider and the consumer. When I buy a CD I don’t have to worry about losing the ability to play it due to some licensing deal done behind locked doors or conversely a failure to properly license (see Amazon and that fiasco with Orwell’s 1984). I don’t have to worry about it failing to play at my friend’s place because the disc somehow got locked to my own player. I think it would be nice to have a smaller more modern format that allows for much higher bit rate music. Something like a minidisc sized CD with the data density of a blu-ray disc. Unfortunately my instinct tells me any new format the media corps come up with will likely be leaden with some ridiculously restrictive DRM that simply destroys the product’s long term value (Glaring balefully at you Ubisoft).

Younger buyers may initially try online distribution options but as they grow older and get screwed a time or two by some soulless media conglomerate I think they will develop a greater appreciation for physical media distribution. Thus it is my opinion that physical media distribution is here to stay.

Vista continues to be good

I agree completely with the assessment that Vista is good and that vocal detractors have either never tried it, or have some misguided pre-conceived notion as to what a new Microsoft OS should have been. Vista started out rough but every OS Microsoft has ever release has had the same problems. I remember back when Windows XP was released. You could install a clean copy and within minutes you would start to run into strange problems with the task bar. I fielded a lot of complaints from my friends and family over that one. That and drivers were only available for the most current hardware on the market. If your machine was a year or two old you had a high likelihood of having to replace at least one piece of hardware. Since XP's release in 2001, most people have long forgotten the teething trouble that plagued its early adopters.

As far as I can tell, Vista's bad reputation was primarily the fault of the press / media. Almost everywhere I turn even today I constantly run into articles that claim Vista to be terrible or refer to it as Windows ME2. Yet all of my friends and family who use the OS, as well just about every IT professional I personally know, agree with the that the now matured Vista is actually quite good. I wish more media professionals would do first hand research rather than just quoting the opinions of other media professionals who also didn't bother doing any first hand research. You did a nice job here Gavin! It is refreshing to read an article that genuinely parrots my own experiences with Vista.

Brandishing

There appears to be multiple faults with what happened here. If you have a CCW you are only required to inform the police you are carrying if they so inquire. If they do ask and you fail to tell them of it then that is a violation. Still, it is a good idea to inform them up front. Helps to avoid problems. Brandishing a weapon is considered a felony however there will likely be some question in the court over whether or not threatening your own property with a firearm by flashing the weapon in public actually constitutes brandishing. If he didn't lay hand on the weapon and did not threaten the safety of the store clerk in any way then there is a chance he might get away with a slap on the wrist. He's gonna need a good lawyer though.

Promises Promises

It all comes down to what the college promised her. If they advertised a guaranteed job in exchange for the time and monetary investment then they damn well better deliver. However I can't really believe any college would legitimately promise something like that. $70,000 is a lot of money. If I had sunk that kind of cash into an education under the promise of a top flight job I would be pretty pissed if they didn't come through for me.

A lot of you have harped on her actions, claiming times are tough. But I say that her willingness to sue shows she has the spirit to stand of and fight for what she needs rather than bending over and taking it up the ass like most people do. There are a lot of ways to get tough, getting a lawyer and suing is a perfectly legitimate method. It'll be for the court to decide just how legitimate her claim is.

Responsibility

To all in that “90%” who feel bittorrent users are stealing from you: This is simply a reality for shared bandwidth type services such as cable internet. I am not saying they are right to use up all the bandwidth, only that it’s a reality that there will always be at least one person using more than their fair share. If you want a guarantee of bandwidth then you should purchase an account with a dedicated bandwidth service provider such as DSL or wireless broadband.

To that “10%” who are purportedly using up all the bandwidth: If you have a shared type service then it is your responsibility to make sure you do not use more than you should. Most torrent applications have built in capping utilities to keep it from using up all of the available bandwidth. Ask your ISP what would be an acceptable sustained transfer rate at which you can cap your torrent application. If you don’t want to take the trouble to set your own limits then you should probably look at dropping your shared bandwidth service and picking up a dedicated service instead. It will likely cost a little more but the fact is you are already using more bandwidth than what you paid for.

To shared bandwidth service providers: Your service needs to very clearly state that it is shared bandwidth. Competitive environment is absolutely not justification for lying (flat out or by omission) in your advertising or contracts. You also need to have a very clear statistics system that divides the bandwidth by the number of users in that lump and tells a user what percentage of the bandwidth they are using in relation to the bandwidth that has been allocated to them.

To dedicated bandwidth service providers: If I purchase 10 megabits per second of unlimited dedicated bandwidth (meaning no limits other than the bandwidth cap) then that bandwidth is mine to use as I see fit. It is the ISP’s responsibility to make sure that it can supply the bandwidth it has sold to me. Period. You also have no say in how I choose to use my bandwidth. If I choose to leave a torrent running all day every day and pushing my connection right up against my account cap all month long then that is my choice. I am not using anyone else’s bandwidth so I can do whatever I want with it. If you are unable to supply the bandwidth you have advertised then you need to change your advertising to reflect a level you are capable of providing. Setting an unspecified monthly bandwidth limit is not acceptable for you under any circumstance.

There has been a rash of ISPs selling more bandwidth than they can actually supply and using tactics such as unspecified monthly limits to try and cover it up. These companies need to be avoided with the vigor normally reserved for roadkill.

If your ISP is throttling your usage then check into the type of service you have and take appropriate measures.