Slashdot Mirror

for this. Why didja think they did it over Scandinavia.

Let's be clear: the poster said he did something, which he fully admits he did, and was wrong, that was investigated by the FBI.

As a fictituous example, he did some phreaking. It's something FBI would investigate if he called the wrong number (of some TLA.) Such an action would be wrong indeed, and he would be questioned, but once the agent determines that he is not an anarchist or a terrorist but just a kid, he'd be released.

And how that could be accidental, involuntary or just done stupidly without a malicious intent? Just make a typo in your dialplan, set it to dial some other FidoNet node and go to school. When you are back you see LEOs swarming around your house. That's how it can be accidental.

And of course "done stupidly" could be easily accomplished after watching WarGames. As I recall, the protagonist in that movie was shown not as a lowly criminal thrown in jail to rot, but as some kind of valuable specialist, "a good boy."

If your potential employer is willing to disqualify you because one of your friends might have had some illicit substance in his possession 15 years ago...

The employer is not likely to gain access to details of the case, generally [don't know how much was disclosed here.] Typically the employer would find an arrest record at best, or a vague reference to it, and that's all. You may not even know if it was for jaywalking or for going postal with guns blazing.

you don't want to work for him anyway

There are already B2B companies offering background checks for employers (see the link, the service #1 at ESR is "criminal record search".) Modern trends of contracting every nonessential job out tell me that this is coming. And if every good business in your town does such a check on you, you'll have to work for not-so-good employers whether you like them or not. Or die from hunger.

A data center in a silo would be almost as good. Looks like a death ray generator to me. Yeah, Canadian death ray. Pew! Pew! Pew! Eh?

That's preposterous... Everyone knows that the Canadian doomsday machine is at the top of the CN Tower.

Mark Hamill was recovering from a car crash which led to him having plastic surgery to repair his face.

Hamill had this to say about that:

"I had the accident way before Star Wars came out, but what really happened has been terribly distorted. I broke my nose, that's it! But I've read accounts about how my face has been reconstructed with plastic surgery, and how I was pulling myself along the highway with one arm looking for help. I even heard that I drove off a cliff! That's the best one of all."

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000434/bio

You have no idea. People who say this is the worst TV ever made are NOT exaggerating

That's a bold statement. Remember this?

It is simply a deliberate gamble with a innocent persons life when one makes babies at 45. There are absolutely *no* excuses, in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly. Tough handicap or not, I often find myself wondering what the world looks like to the stereotypical (though rare) Hollywood Rain Man. I have an IQ of about 142, and seeing certain friends of mine struggle to understand things that come completely intuitively to me, like programming a tv without a manual (or even with one!), grasping the concepts of levers and gearing things up/down, logic puzzles, etc. I wonder how a person significantly more intelligent than me views the world we live in.

Not everyone can scour the source/binary of every app they get from a 'trusted' site.

At least someone inspected this package. The malware was found, after all. Besides, expecting everyone to scour everything is a Red Herring.

And if you cant trust the 'trusted' sites for the free stuff, then the entire FreeOS movement is dead in its tracks.

At some point you have to trust. Not 'click yes on pop-up warning number 300 for the day' trust but 'these packages are signed by so-and-so who I trust.' Or to put it in words that the corporate world uses: 'signed by so-and-so who I blame.'

A bigger white elephant in the room is Unix-style OSes that do a good job of securing the OS from damage by users, but still let the user completely wipe their own home directory out. I don't really care that this screensaver I download and put in ~/whereever can't mess with anything else in the system. All it has to do is ruin ~/. As they say, that's where I keep my stuff.

Apparently no one here (or in Norway) has seen The Final Countdown. Has anyone reported recently returning from 1941? Is it a coincidence that this happened on Pearl Harbor Day? Ha, I think not!

Am I the only one thinking Planet of the Krell" here? Waiting for the giant spark-emitting elevators next.

Actually, it should remind you of this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/

Wrong. There were very few "bosses" in the game.

The game was about the monsters after 5 minutes.
The game was also about the ship (and later the marker) throughout.

The game was certainly not about killing the monsters. It was about getting the ship repaired and such - the monsters were just an obstacle.

Gonna have to disagree.

For the first half (or so) of the game it felt like I was trying to fix the ship. Most of the objectives directly involved fixing something that was broken. And generally the process of fixing the thing involved locating spare parts and flipping switches. There were certainly monsters in the way, but they were simply obstacles. The goal was to get some gizmo up and running (for whatever reason) - not just to kill something nasty.

After some point (and I'll admit it has been a while since I last played, so I can't very well identify exactly when it happened) it felt like the primary goal was to kill the monsters - not fix the ship. The regenerating super-necromorph is a good example of this... You had an entire couple of levels that seemed to revolve entirely around killing this guy.

Yes, of course, the marker and the monsters were always part of the story - even before you knew what the marker was or where the monsters came from. And the ship was always part of the story - even when you were eyeball-deep in necromorphs.

And I realize there weren't a whole lot of real boss monsters in the game.

Nor am I suggesting that you ever got a mission objective that simply said "kill the boss necromorph."

But it seems to me that at some point the ultimate goal changed from get enough of the ship working again to get out of this alive to kick necromorph ass and chew bubblegum.

Not that there's really anything wrong with kicking necromorph ass and chewing bubblegum... But it feels different.

The first half of the game felt like I was stuck on a rapidly sinking ship with some unpleasant monsters. The monsters were less of a worry (because I could kill them) than the sinking ship. The primary threat to my continued existence was the environment (the ship) itself. If that ship was allowed to sink, it wouldn't matter if I killed monsters or not, because I'd be dead either way.

Once the ship had been sufficiently fixed, it became just like pretty much any other shooter/horror game. I was no longer on a rapidly sinking ship, but rather on firm ground. I could take my time to deal with the monsters in whatever manner I felt necessary.

I've always felt that a hostile environment adds a wonderful amount of tension to a horror movie/game/story/book/whatever. Look at something like Alien - not only is there a monster that wants to eat you, but there's nowhere to run to. Or The Thing - you can't just walk away, you're out in the middle of the ice and snow.

Once the ship had been stabilized, that sense of a hostile environment was largely alleviated. Sure, you were still stuck on the ship out in space... But it was a freaking huge ship. It felt distinctly possible that you could find a quiet place to hide out and wait for rescue.

And that meant that you were some kind of lone warrior taking the fight to the enemy - much like in Halo or Quake or just about any other shooter I've ever played.

Wrong. There were very few "bosses" in the game.

The game was about the monsters after 5 minutes.
The game was also about the ship (and later the marker) throughout.

The game was certainly not about killing the monsters. It was about getting the ship repaired and such - the monsters were just an obstacle.

Gonna have to disagree.

For the first half (or so) of the game it felt like I was trying to fix the ship. Most of the objectives directly involved fixing something that was broken. And generally the process of fixing the thing involved locating spare parts and flipping switches. There were certainly monsters in the way, but they were simply obstacles. The goal was to get some gizmo up and running (for whatever reason) - not just to kill something nasty.

After some point (and I'll admit it has been a while since I last played, so I can't very well identify exactly when it happened) it felt like the primary goal was to kill the monsters - not fix the ship. The regenerating super-necromorph is a good example of this... You had an entire couple of levels that seemed to revolve entirely around killing this guy.

Yes, of course, the marker and the monsters were always part of the story - even before you knew what the marker was or where the monsters came from. And the ship was always part of the story - even when you were eyeball-deep in necromorphs.

And I realize there weren't a whole lot of real boss monsters in the game.

Nor am I suggesting that you ever got a mission objective that simply said "kill the boss necromorph."

But it seems to me that at some point the ultimate goal changed from get enough of the ship working again to get out of this alive to kick necromorph ass and chew bubblegum.

Not that there's really anything wrong with kicking necromorph ass and chewing bubblegum... But it feels different.

The first half of the game felt like I was stuck on a rapidly sinking ship with some unpleasant monsters. The monsters were less of a worry (because I could kill them) than the sinking ship. The primary threat to my continued existence was the environment (the ship) itself. If that ship was allowed to sink, it wouldn't matter if I killed monsters or not, because I'd be dead either way.

Once the ship had been sufficiently fixed, it became just like pretty much any other shooter/horror game. I was no longer on a rapidly sinking ship, but rather on firm ground. I could take my time to deal with the monsters in whatever manner I felt necessary.

I've always felt that a hostile environment adds a wonderful amount of tension to a horror movie/game/story/book/whatever. Look at something like Alien - not only is there a monster that wants to eat you, but there's nowhere to run to. Or The Thing - you can't just walk away, you're out in the middle of the ice and snow.

Once the ship had been stabilized, that sense of a hostile environment was largely alleviated. Sure, you were still stuck on the ship out in space... But it was a freaking huge ship. It felt distinctly possible that you could find a quiet place to hide out and wait for rescue.

And that meant that you were some kind of lone warrior taking the fight to the enemy - much like in Halo or Quake or just about any other shooter I've ever played.

Just don't tell that to Bomb #20.

He's a taxman.

Did you realize what you just said? You'll Google for a solution. Was that a joke, because honestly that's starting to be scary. Obviously Google has way too much power on the Internet.

This is starting to sound like that sports drink that is used for everything in the movie Idiocracy.

What would you recommended? Yahoo, Bing, some obscure search engine, ... or reading the DNS manual?

I see you have developed a Googlephobia, but the rest of us don't have any problem using their service even if it means they index everything.

Did you realize what you just said? You'll Google for a solution. Was that a joke, because honestly that's starting to be scary. Obviously Google has way too much power on the Internet.

This is starting to sound like that sports drink that is used for everything in the movie Idiocracy.

... or in other words.

Physically and thoroughly, say with a sledge hammer.

Actually, according to Western Digital documentation the only way "to be sure" requires, and I quote: "the use of a specialized device, while remaining at a distance no less than 160 km from the target hard disk drive".

Source

Like this for instance

You think that is bad? Some years back a seven year old girl got Mousehunt or so it said on the box that had been bought from a toy store. However the contents of the box turned out to be a porn movie called big nuts.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071233/

Make your payments, and you'll have no problems.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/

I'm reminded of this quote from the Max Headroom series:

Credit fraud? My God, that's worse than murder!

Reference

Note: if copyright durations weren't so ridiculously long, the above reference link would probably be directly to streaming video of that scene.

Maybe they're just bitter about the 4.6 stars the film got.

An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.

Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.

Incorrect.

Completely wrong.

So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.

In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel. There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing. There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them. And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.

To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.

Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate. They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends. They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.

But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids. You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie. They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.

Then you've got movies with some real substance to them. Things like Pulp Fiction. Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it. Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.

Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old. This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien or Evil Dead II or Cannibal: The Musical.

I used to agree with you, but as general movie quality has slipped, so has my opinion...

Childhood infatuations aside (which I don't think are healthy anyway and are a direct result of advertising and peer pressure, IMO), there are a very low percentage of movies that I would prefer to watch more than once. Maybe 1 movie every two years. The rest of what comes out is complete crap that can be completely understood and remembered after one (sober) viewing.

The three favorite movies you just listed were from 1979, 1987, and 1998, so I gather you agree with me to some extent.

I don't think it is fair to compare movies to books either due to the fact that books are able to offer so much more nuance and storyline complexity.

An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.

Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.

Incorrect.

Completely wrong.

So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.

In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel. There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing. There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them. And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.

To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.

Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate. They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends. They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.

But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids. You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie. They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.

Then you've got movies with some real substance to them. Things like Pulp Fiction. Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it. Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.

Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old. This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien or Evil Dead II or Cannibal: The Musical.

I used to agree with you, but as general movie quality has slipped, so has my opinion...

Childhood infatuations aside (which I don't think are healthy anyway and are a direct result of advertising and peer pressure, IMO), there are a very low percentage of movies that I would prefer to watch more than once. Maybe 1 movie every two years. The rest of what comes out is complete crap that can be completely understood and remembered after one (sober) viewing.

The three favorite movies you just listed were from 1979, 1987, and 1998, so I gather you agree with me to some extent.

I don't think it is fair to compare movies to books either due to the fact that books are able to offer so much more nuance and storyline complexity.

An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.

Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.

Incorrect.

Completely wrong.

So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.

In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel. There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing. There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them. And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.

To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.

Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate. They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends. They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.

But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids. You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie. They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.

Then you've got movies with some real substance to them. Things like Pulp Fiction. Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it. Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.

Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old. This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien or Evil Dead II or Cannibal: The Musical.

I used to agree with you, but as general movie quality has slipped, so has my opinion...

Childhood infatuations aside (which I don't think are healthy anyway and are a direct result of advertising and peer pressure, IMO), there are a very low percentage of movies that I would prefer to watch more than once. Maybe 1 movie every two years. The rest of what comes out is complete crap that can be completely understood and remembered after one (sober) viewing.

The three favorite movies you just listed were from 1979, 1987, and 1998, so I gather you agree with me to some extent.

I don't think it is fair to compare movies to books either due to the fact that books are able to offer so much more nuance and storyline complexity.

An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.

Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.

Incorrect.

Completely wrong.

So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.

In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel. There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing. There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them. And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.

To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.

Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate. They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends. They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.

But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids. You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie. They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.

Then you've got movies with some real substance to them. Things like Pulp Fiction. Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it. Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.

Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old. This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien or Evil Dead II or Cannibal: The Musical.

I used to agree with you, but as general movie quality has slipped, so has my opinion...

Childhood infatuations aside (which I don't think are healthy anyway and are a direct result of advertising and peer pressure, IMO), there are a very low percentage of movies that I would prefer to watch more than once. Maybe 1 movie every two years. The rest of what comes out is complete crap that can be completely understood and remembered after one (sober) viewing.

The three favorite movies you just listed were from 1979, 1987, and 1998, so I gather you agree with me to some extent.

I don't think it is fair to compare movies to books either due to the fact that books are able to offer so much more nuance and storyline complexity.

It seems to me that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to watch the new releases after having seen the previous ones. You seem to assume that after watching the low-quality VCD, folks would want to watch the DVD... And after watching the DVD, they'd want to see the theatrical release and buy the boxed set.

The problem with this, of course, is that a lot of movies just aren't that good.

I could easily see this working for something like Kill Bill or Ghost Busters...

But I'm not certain that it would work for the majority of movies out there. I mean, I enjoyed The Hangover... But, having watched it on VCD or DVD, I really don't think I'd feel the need to see it in the theater. And I certainly wouldn't buy the boxed set. And that was a pretty fun movie.

Sure, if the popularity for the VCD is low you don't have to make a crapton of DVDs... And if the DVDs don't move you can just skip the theatrical release... But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums. The money goes to paying actors, and lighting guys, and directors, and writers, and whoever else... Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.

So I'm really not certain you'd wind up making enough money to break even. I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days, most people would be content with a VCD or DVD. I don't think you'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set.

It seems to me that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to watch the new releases after having seen the previous ones. You seem to assume that after watching the low-quality VCD, folks would want to watch the DVD... And after watching the DVD, they'd want to see the theatrical release and buy the boxed set.

The problem with this, of course, is that a lot of movies just aren't that good.

I could easily see this working for something like Kill Bill or Ghost Busters...

But I'm not certain that it would work for the majority of movies out there. I mean, I enjoyed The Hangover... But, having watched it on VCD or DVD, I really don't think I'd feel the need to see it in the theater. And I certainly wouldn't buy the boxed set. And that was a pretty fun movie.

Sure, if the popularity for the VCD is low you don't have to make a crapton of DVDs... And if the DVDs don't move you can just skip the theatrical release... But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums. The money goes to paying actors, and lighting guys, and directors, and writers, and whoever else... Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.

So I'm really not certain you'd wind up making enough money to break even. I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days, most people would be content with a VCD or DVD. I don't think you'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set.

It seems to me that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to watch the new releases after having seen the previous ones. You seem to assume that after watching the low-quality VCD, folks would want to watch the DVD... And after watching the DVD, they'd want to see the theatrical release and buy the boxed set.

The problem with this, of course, is that a lot of movies just aren't that good.

I could easily see this working for something like Kill Bill or Ghost Busters...

But I'm not certain that it would work for the majority of movies out there. I mean, I enjoyed The Hangover... But, having watched it on VCD or DVD, I really don't think I'd feel the need to see it in the theater. And I certainly wouldn't buy the boxed set. And that was a pretty fun movie.

Sure, if the popularity for the VCD is low you don't have to make a crapton of DVDs... And if the DVDs don't move you can just skip the theatrical release... But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums. The money goes to paying actors, and lighting guys, and directors, and writers, and whoever else... Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.

So I'm really not certain you'd wind up making enough money to break even. I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days, most people would be content with a VCD or DVD. I don't think you'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set.

An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.

Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.

Incorrect.

Completely wrong.

So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.

In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel. There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing. There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them. And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.

To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.

Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate. They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends. They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.

But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids. You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie. They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.

Then you've got movies with some real substance to them. Things like Pulp Fiction. Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it. Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.

Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old. This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien or Evil Dead II or Cannibal: The Musical.

An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.

Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.

Incorrect.

Completely wrong.

So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.

In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel. There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing. There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them. And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.

To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.

Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate. They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends. They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.

But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids. You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie. They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.

Then you've got movies with some real substance to them. Things like Pulp Fiction. Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it. Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.

Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old. This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien or Evil Dead II or Cannibal: The Musical.

An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.

Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.

Incorrect.

Completely wrong.

So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.

In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel. There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing. There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them. And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.

To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.

Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate. They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends. They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.

But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids. You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie. They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.

Then you've got movies with some real substance to them. Things like Pulp Fiction. Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it. Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.

Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old. This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien or Evil Dead II or Cannibal: The Musical.

An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.

Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.

Incorrect.

Completely wrong.

So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.

In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel. There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing. There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them. And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.

To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.

Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate. They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends. They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.

But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids. You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie. They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.

Then you've got movies with some real substance to them. Things like Pulp Fiction. Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it. Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.

Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old. This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien or Evil Dead II or Cannibal: The Musical.

Indeed. By far the best movie I've seen this year is District 9, and the closest a big centralised studio came to that was TriStar getting distribution rights i.e. No input on the film at all. Essentially, the guy who made this and this was offered $30m by Peter Jackson to do whatever he wanted after the Halo movie fell through.

I suggest you watch it.

I guess they never heard of "The Usual Suspects" parties. Those guys watch that movie over and over just to hear Kevin Spacey say, "I killed him." under his breath.( I never heard it.)

I would have closed the ticket with a two word note: 1D10T error

They made a movie about this ...

Josh Baskin's dreams have finally manifested into a physical product!

+1 Funny. Star Trek is, of course, an historical document.

In Soviet Russia the PC controls the headset!

Missed Moment of Awesome. The correct Soviet joke in this case should be:
"In Soviet Russia, the Program controls the Brain through the Headset!"

Nyet. Correct Joke about Soviet Thought-Controlled Awesomeness was stolen by Clint Eastwood in 1982.

"You must think in Russian."

I mean, My Movies 3 is probably the best thing since sliced bread for playing movies.

To be fair, sliced bread didn't help much for movies.

Didn't hurt this movie: Love Is a Slice of Bread

This post needs to be tagged with "Memento".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/

We can call it 1 / Memento.

Flamebait? Someone's clearly not had their first coffee of the day yet...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/

And ... flaming who, exactly? Did someone actually think that we Canadians were going to take umbrage?

Damn! That means the Windows sequel will be as bad as the Herbie sequel. The sequel that should be forgotten.

"Gates! I live to see you eat that blue screen. But I hope you save room for my fist, because I'm going to ram it into your computer and break your goddamn motherboard!"

(Canadian Bacon reference).

Ask a group of "Average Americans" the question "What is the capital of Canada" and probably 30% of them at least will say "Toronto".

Dude - there are (and were) cults out in the US today that do much, much worse. Past examples? Branch Davidians (Waco)

Slow down there friend and check this documentary out before you write off the Davidians as a bunch of psychos. Normal? No. But worse than slave labor, I think not.

However, even the most jaded, cynical atheist cannot deny that organized religions have also done some amazing things for the societies in which they existed.

Yeh, I'm sure Scientology has done some good. So what? Are you suggesting we try and keep some kind of score card, we can put "imprison children and malke them slaves" on one side and "feed homeless" on the other? Not sure what we do when they "convert" a follower with those "selfless acts" though.

Of course Atheists never do any charitable works on their own, so as long as the nutjobs "help" roughly as many as they screw over, it's all good.

is every bit as ignorant and superficial as claiming that someone cannot drive because their plumbing is different than mine ...

That's right, I forgot that most "organised" religions fought so hard for equal rights and civil rights, oh wait...