82 million xBox 360 owners can't be wrong right?
And how many million people bought Kylie Minogue and Madonna records? They can't be wrong, right?
:-)
You make it sound like starving people are getting fat too.
If they are becoming obese, the particular individual has a surplus of caloric intake, if only for this year or month. This is not to say that they have proper nutrition. So I am not at all clear that the fact that there is obesity in the third world is confounding evidence.
Chairman, CEO, CFO, CIO, Executive VP of Sales and Marketing and Executive VP of something to do with engaging the outsourcing suppliers with the starving peasants working 80+ hours a week for a pittance in undeveloped countries.
Actually, they did. Verizon has just yet to deliver. Apparently they don't expect to deliver until the end of the year in any case.
Considering the lousy end products I have to deal with on a daily basis, paying programmers more money won't improve the skillset. You want to be paid more money? Produce a better product.
When the PHBs conspire to make that (producing a better product) impossible, it doesn't matter what engineers you employ or how much you pay them.
The relentless push to cut costs, do "more with less," let the staff numbers dwindle through natural wastage and lack of vision, invent fantasy project schedules (requiring weekend, evening and holiday work) and no resources (what do you mean you need physical hardware to develop and test on? I just sold the test kit to a customer. It was revenue just begging to be had...) catches up with every company eventually.
My current employer is now in this state, and almost everyone (who knows anything) has left and I'm about to as well, however as far as the PHBs and VPs are concerned, everything's fine and dandy. Targets are at 100%, the share price has doubled and we're making a consistent profit.
The fact that tumbleweeds are blowing through Engineering hasn't quite registered...
It's the natural cycle these days. They call it "capitalism" but it's not the capitalism I understand.
Martin,
The last time I had a professional video produced, I paid $5000 for a one-minute commercial, and those were rock-bottom prices from hungry people who wanted it for their own portfolio. I doubt I could get that today. $8000 for the entire conference is really volunteer work on Gary's part.
Someone's got to pay for it. One alternative would be to get a corporate sponsor and give them a keynote, which is what so many conferences do, but that would be abandoning our editorial independence. Having Gary fund his own operation through Kickstarter without burdening the conference is what we're doing. We're really lucky we could get that.
Users agree: adding a progress bar makes a thing faster.
Appropriating mythological characters is fine and dandy, but making fundamental changes to them that don't serve a greater purpose to the audience is not.
Simply moving them from mythology to a superhero universe is already a fundamental change. Marvel has made many, many, many other changes to Thor. In fact, when he was first introduced, it was as a normal human finding Thor's hammer in a cave and turning into Thor. There already have been "what if?" stories exploring the scenario where his wife/girlfriend found the hammer instead. Storm has wielded Mjolnier on several occasions and turned into Thor. An alien has turned into Thor.
Fundamental differences compared to the mythological Thor are central to Marvel's Thor.
To take a non-mythological example, I've enjoyed the change from "John Watson" to "Joan Watson" in Elementary (the John Watson associated with Sherlock Holmes, in case you aren't familiar with it). Why? Because in the original Sherlock stories there has always been a kind of weird relationship between Sherlock and John. Changing John to a female character presents those relationships in a different light, just as it would if the characters were gay. So that's interesting.
And so is this. This is also an interesting new twist to the character. It's not as if they're turning Thor into Spiderman or something. It's just that now, a woman is Thor.
To take another example, in the Thor movie, making Heimdall black was stupid. That added nothing.. though since he was a minor character it wasn't a big deal.
Did it take anything away? To a lot of people, it most certainly did add something. There was nothing stupid about making him black.
Hypothetically, if they had made Loki black to make his "otherness" more obvious, that could have been interesting on many levels so it would be a worthwhile change to explore.
I feel like we're getting to the heart of the matter here. You associate black with "otherness". Let me guess: you are white? And male? Do you associate female also with "otherness"?
Do you realize that there are people like you who are black and/or female? That to them, there's nothing "other" about black or female? And if culture continues insisting that black and female are "other", then they will be forced to see themselves as "other", or all of culture will become "other". Wouldn't it be better to accept blacks and women as people just like yourself?
So what does changing Thor into a woman bring to the table?
Well, apparently it exposes these kind of preconceptions. That's something.
For now, I can't think of anything interesting that comes up as a result of Thor being a woman. So to me this was a stupid change.
To you maybe, but to many others, it's a wonderful change. And even you may eventually see something interesting coming from this. I hope you will.
Errr, yeah, but they could have just used Intel chips like everyone else. Ultimately it would have given better performance, saved themselves a lot of pain in switch over, and put themselves ahead of the curve selling to people who wanted to dual boot. So did IBM save them or cripple them?
6 Curses = 1 Hexahex