Although the bill addresses many of the concerns abroad regarding the lack of commitment by the United States, one concern should be the potential cost of this program that will likely be staggering and how Obama plans to also meet his deficit targets in 2012 as well. A summary of the draft bill can be found here(PDF)."
Another thing I really have a problem with is the fact that so few writers (and BSG is guilty of this one) have a general idea of what direction they're going to take from start to end.
Indeed. I was never satisfied with the whole "And they have a plan" because from what I could tell, there wasn't one. I really don't think it's hard to sit down and think about where the show will go as a whole and how many seasons it should cover. I think part of the problem is that they don't want to commit a ton of resources to a show that may not end up working based on viewership.
While 6 (as in Lost) is a bit much in comparison to BSG's 4 (I just think it's a bit trimmed in terms of fat), it still falls within my rule of 7 seasons max with human cast. Example: X-Files was pretty solid until Duchovny left and that was somewhere in season 6 to 8.
I've just grown tired of the overused mechanics in storytelling.
Shows like Burn Notice pull this off very well I think. Psych might be in that boat too. House attempts that a little bit and 24 doesn't much matter because it's often "intense" anyway. But on the whole, I think there is honestly too much competition/reality programming on cable television these days and a lot of it I just have to pick and choose since no one ever shows reruns much anymore since the dvr can only do so much. And with this competition comes the same story elements being constantly used. Shows like Law and Order just too predictable.
Abrams is tough. I've watched Lost, MI3, Joy Ride, Cloverfield, and Fringe. Lost, as we seem to agree, has it's problems. MI3 was enjoyable but it had references to Lost in the movie. Joy Ride is a generic horror movie that disappoints but I think Leelee Sobieski is hot. Cloverfield was an amazing concept (Blair Witch filming meets monster) and was a great movie to have seen in theaters, BUT all the trailers were incredibly vague on showing the monster - which I found to be laughable upon seeing and I understand why they did. Plus, there's a sequel planned and from what it sounds like, it could just be someone else's perspective. Fringe has similar elements to Lost that piss me off and some of the faux-science is just silly but I really wanted another X-Files and this attempts to fill the niche. Well, as long as it can dodge the Fox effect.
As for Star Trek, we will have to see but I think it's hard to take it seriously with Shaun of the Dead as Scotty. Based on the trailers it appears to be trendy action movie remake of a classic franchise. But if he can pull it off, I might cut him some slack.
A weakness of Lost is in that every episode has a cliffhanger element and has ruined the cliffhanger for me. But the biggest problem I see with Lost is that as the show as progressed, new nuggets provided continue to produce more conspiracy theory, more nonsense, and more distrust of everything you previously knew. Lost has become a show that I just accept what happens and don't really bother to think about the future anymore - something any producer should never want to happen to their show (I spent hours thinking about how BSG would end, I already forgot what the Lost episode is about this week). And sadly, this disinterest in cliffhangers and thinking has carried over to other shows I enjoy as well. Or perhaps I have become more critical of television as a whole.
All in all, the biggest problem I have is that JJ Abrams has become too big for himself. He loves referencing all his work in other works, which makes him come across as a major douche. And I find that his overuse of misdirection in his projects fails to make him the "master" of showmanship that he may think he is. But unfortunately Abrams has developed a big enough name for himself such that any project his name is associated with will draw people in and the flaws will be neglected until it becomes too apparent. Alas.
Being firmly entrenched in pre-established Stargate mythology, Stargate Universe follows the adventures of a team of explorers from present-day Earth after they find the Ancient spaceship Destiny. They must fend for themselves aboard the ship in the far reaches of the universe as they are unable to return to Earth.
So it's Stargate Voyager? I'm glad I quit watching a long time ago.
I only know because I ran an Assassins game where every code name was sex term: donkey punch, hoover maneuver, wolfbagging, etc.
My biggest problem with the main story was having to find my father. I'm introduced to him in through about 20 minutes of gameplay and then I have to find him. And my only option for beating the game is to help him with Project Purity? To me, your father is on the same level as a deadbeat dad that leaves the family. I realize that the main gameplay is more important than the child aspect but at some point, you need to want to find him. What about players who don't care about their dad or helping him? What if you want to agree to go hunt your father down and bring him back to 101? Possibilities are endless.
My dream open game world would be something like Thief and set in a similar time frame. You take missions freely and based on what missions you take, different outcomes will happen. Start it in a large city with surrounding areas and progress to other cities and areas similar to the Bethesda approach. Train in weapons and skills, make connections and fences, bribe officials and security, elude security and investigators, etc. And instead of a major story arc, there are mission arcs that can overlap into a unique story experience.
Sadly I'm not a software guy so making these things a reality are outside my skill sets. I imagine I could think of some of the major challenges involved but it would be more interesting to get others perspectives on them.
Sadly, Ubisoft ran these franchises into the ground and made them unplayable on the PC in my opinion - R6 Vegas and Vegas 2. Mostly, it's a beef I have with joint PC and console support for FPS and the resulting interface and control scheme on PC. Additionally, the games were just lousy and lacked a lot of what the originals had that made them amazing. It essentially resulted in the end of this specialized genre of FPS.
1) B787 is 210-330pax. A380 is 500-800pax. The current AF1 is a B747, 400-525pax. B787 is already smaller than the current AF1. Undesirable based on the current trend of growing AF1. I would assume this is due to a combination of required equipment, addition of countermeasures, etc.
2) B787 is a two engine aircraft. AF1/B747/A380 are four engine aircraft. From a reliability, four engines are better as in the case of one engine out, you will fly further. Additional difficulties arise from suggesting that the B787 add two extra engines - results in a complete vehicle redesign.
Additionally, better fuel economy isn't a very descriptive metric. Total fuel burn? MPG? TSFC? LB/pax-NM? Granted I haven't really looked at comparisons of the two since they are intended to be used in different seat classes. Same goes for higher tech. You might want to specify that too.
It will be interesting to see what Boeing puts up on the board. It would be foolish for them not to. I think the 747-8 will be interesting (and their bid) as it shares some of the same 787 tech and similar parts to the 747. And with those considerations, I have a strong feeling that the 747-8 will likely win the competition. But I'll keep my eyes on the competition. Both companies will want this contract.
But bad news champ, that's not the argument the author is making. He's saying the gaming PC industry is dying. There is little reason to spend $3,000 on a system when, in many cases, it offers little improvement over a system costs half as much. Part of the reason that HP is likely dropping the niche is that it's a small money maker for them. I'm not surprised at all really. He even says if he can't see the merit, how can he sell it to my customers. He's talking about bringing the hardware market back down to earth and the impact it would have on the gaming market.
Once the software can start taking advantage of the extra hardware, I think we will see this market return. But I think the major driver in the industry pushing for requiring more horsepower are the publishers. They seem to think that prettier equals better game. Sure, Half-Life 2 is prettier than Doom/Wolf 3D but I would speculate the better aspect is due to the improvements to the gameplay experience.
Besides, I own a Wii. I haven't bought a game on it since Super Smash. Some of the games are fun and I like the controller scheme but I'm an adult damnit, I want some good adult themed games. Sure I could get a 360 or PS3 but there aren't enough games there that I'd be really interested in playing either. The only perks for the PS3 are Blu-ray, Little Big Planet, and GT5 - couple more killer apps and I might snag one down the road. I think the real problem is that with three consoles, all the good games get less recognition since there are few players that own all three systems. And if I have to pick and choose, then I make a choice and see how it goes. I'd say console gaming is dying as the market gets flooded with crappier games.
Your solution of "Sucks for you." doesn't balance the fact that insurance companies are fucking people over. So the GP should have the right to hold you at gun point and take everything on you? Perhaps that is whatever it takes to secure things for them. Same goes for people trying to score drugs and those who steal. Whatever it takes isn't going to be the best solution.
As for being able to afford drugs, have you seen the price of drugs without health insurance? One of my brother's bipolar meds is $300 a refill. It's only $200 if you have a AAA card (WTF??). And $100 with insurance. These are drugs required to make sure he functions versus being in a manic depressive state.
Being in a manic depressive state will not allow him to work harder. GP's symptoms do not seem to allow for him to work harder. Suck it up champ and work through isn't a reasonable solution here. Neither is medical costs driving people to bankruptcy. Something has to be done about the exploding cost of healthcare or no one but the rich will be able to afford it.