Slashdot Mirror

Which "old" Slate are you referring to?

This Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2476/
This one: http://www.slate.com/id/82275/
Maybe this one: http://www.slate.com/id/2074045/

Thanks for playing! Please try again.

Which "old" Slate are you referring to?

This Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2476/
This one: http://www.slate.com/id/82275/
Maybe this one: http://www.slate.com/id/2074045/

Thanks for playing! Please try again.

Which "old" Slate are you referring to?

This Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2476/
This one: http://www.slate.com/id/82275/
Maybe this one: http://www.slate.com/id/2074045/

Thanks for playing! Please try again.

While you are correct that no one loses money to get a tax break, parent poster is right about german tax law. There is a more detailed explanation of how to use German and British tax law here . As an example, "On paper, Tomb Raider's budget was $94 million. In fact, the entire movie cost Paramount less than $7 million." Pretty stunning tax loops.

http://slate.com/id/2110495/

I'd like to see you respond to that. What's better about HD-DVD? It won't be "nearly as horribly DRM-infested" but I can be pretty fucking sure Microsoft isn't going to back something that can be cracked with much ease. That besides, I don't bother backing up my DVDs for personal use. If I'm backing up DVDs it's for illegal use. I don't know anybody who bothers backing up their own DVDs for personal use. HD-DVDs won't let you, and Blu-Ray won't let you. Not out of the box. There's going to have to be some HD-DVD/Blu-Ray Jon before that happens.

We know chimpanzees exhibit behaviors consistent with emotions like love, respect, disappointment, devotion, etc. We've seen elephants exhibit behaviors that look like religious ceremonies, and who hold grave sites in high reverence. Heck, I've seen an eel that was so emotionally distraught over it's partner being thrown out of the water to her death during an earthquake that a week later he threw himself to his death too. We've all known household pets that show jealousy and passive-agressive tendencies in no uncertain terms.

Yeah, and many people attribute such emotions to their car too. It seems that people simply like to view non-human things as human. Your pet's brain likely doesn't work like yours. Get over it. Animals aren't human. They're lunch.

http://www.slate.com/id/2127419/

Actually this is a completly accetable use of the word literally. Please read http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/ Language evolves and words change meaning depending on usage. That word has literally been turned inside out.

By the late 17th century, though, literally was being used as an intensifier for true statements. The Oxford English Dictionary cites Dryden and Pope for this sense; Jane Austen, in Sanditon, wrote of a stormy night that, "We had been literally rocked in our bed." In these examples, literally is used for the sake of emphasis alone.

...no one seems to have objected to the [figurative] usage until the early 20th century.

Read the fucking dictionary yourself you moron. It has two meanings, and the parent's usage has been used by such writers as Jane Austen, Mark Twain and James Joyce. If you are going to be a pendantic prick, at least be right.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/literally should set you straight.

See http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/ for more info.

While you are right about sequels being the creative bane of the entertainment industry, they are money in the bank. Customers know the universe of each sequel, they know what to expect.

See http://www.slate.com/id/2119701/ for some background on this, at least in the film industry.

> Yeah, because it isn't like everyone benefits from the freemarket system. Only the Waltons benefit from their stores. Not the millions of poorer people that are able to afford more goods and live better lives because they can afford cheaper goods.

Funny about that... The current minimum [wage] places a family below the federal poverty level, unable (as Wal-Mart's chairman put it) to shop even at Wal-Mart.

Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, goes on to say: "Not long after, Bush called James Robison (a prominent minister) and told him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' " Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention heard Bush say something similar: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK.' "

Source

We are no longer fighting a great enemy, we are asserting a great principle: that the talents and dreams of average people - their warm human hopes and loves - should be rewarded by freedom and protected by peace. We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to God and conscience, not to government.

Source

In Dilip Hiro's book "Secrets and Lies," Hiro quotes the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha'aretz of June 24, 2003, reporting that Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas: "God told me to strike at Al Qaida (sic) and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Source

Of course, perhaps you can provide some sources that state otherwise?

Not quite, because the missiles have anti-interception measures (like designed to fragment in many sub-heads and explode if hit). Any way, defense is a dangerous game. The history shows that the Patriots have a crappy record against Scuds. One missile missed over New-York, and voila, 1 millions dead. Do you really want to play a game of thermonuclear war?

Is it just me or does the marketing have more substance than the roll out? Here in Europe we got 300_000 for the whole continent which unsurprisingly sold out on day one. Now there are no Xbox360's in the shops, nobody wants to buy the old Xbox and I bet Sony and Ninetendo are laughing all the way to the bank. I bought my kids DSs for xmas.

And given that this is the first nextgen console, why not charge a premium price. It would reduce demand and you'd make lots more money pre-xmas. This article points out how MS could have made more of it. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't happy

That's a general Hollywood strategy, not restricted to Uwe, as many other reasons as we have to hate him. Apparently the loophole has been closed, though, so they'll have to find other crooked ways to make their money. It is amazing, though, isn't it? Tomb Raider was paid for before they even released it in theaters, so all ticket revenues and rental sales were pure profit. Nice work if you can get it.

That's a general Hollywood strategy, not restricted to Uwe, as many other reasons as we have to hate him. Apparently the loophole has been closed, though, so they'll have to find other crooked ways to make their money. It is amazing, though, isn't it? Tomb Raider was paid for before they even released it in theaters, so all ticket revenues and rental sales were pure profit. Nice work if you can get it.

Collective sigh...

George Reeves remains the manliest Superman ever.

Does Hollywood not care that "Superman" is supposed to be "super", i.e., more-than, a "man"?

You don't androgynize Superman. You don't play the surprise card when it comes to his power. You put out there a man who looks like a man and represents exactly what he is: the strongest, fastest, least-vulnerable humanoid on the planet.

If I wanted irony in my superhero, I'd make a movie about Underdog, or Yoda.

This is just a waste of the symbolism to turn a profit on the name-recognition factor.

I wish I knew the magic formula for getting a submission accepted

IANAMagician, but try this:

1. Google's inherently non-evil news aggregator confirms that BSD isn't dead
2. ????^H^H^H^HNetcraft confirms that Linus Torvalds has killed Roland Piquepaille
3. Constitution! As overlord! Profit!

[RANT] #3 is particularly important because many world citizens, both at home and abroad, are so often appalled by the willingness of the people of the USA to see its government stomp all over the Constitution on behalf of paranoia, insularity, xenophobia and rampant corporatism. This restoration of faith and hope may be as small as the proportion of renewable elements in that there Patriot Act, but it means a lot. It's disappointing that it took a superannuated grunt like Jack Murtha to flip the switch in DC, but right now the world citizen will take what he/she can get. [/RANT]

Why should we believe the "New York Crimes?" They have a habit of hiring reports who fabricate stories.

Mr Schachter is an intelligent man with his own vision. Many companies were bidding on del.icio.us. I have faith that he joined the company that allowed him to keep as much of his original vision as possible.

You mean like when AOL bought Nullsoft for WinAmp? That turned out greaaaat.....

Wikipedia is a real-life Hitchhiker's Guide: huge, nerdy, and imprecise

Wikipedia is a real-life Hitchhiker's Guide: huge, nerdy, and imprecise

I had similar thoughts upon seeing the film this weekend, and didn't recall the level of Christian imagery being there when I read the books as a child. But it's there, and there is a great writeup on it at Slate.com at http://www.slate.com/id/2131908/

The author of the above piece even gives some pretty good analysis on why we don't seem to remember the religious over/undertones from our childhood readings.

Also interesting to discover that Lewis was a contemporary of Tolkien, and that perhaps this relationship with Tolkien kindled the Christian influences in his writing.

I of course agree with you. I'd be a fool not to. But I don't think you go far enough. The way you've worded this it sounds like Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, but that something else is.

What might that be exactly? Not The New York Times, not The encyclopedia Britannica and surely not public officials. Personally, I tend to trust the OED and the CRC, but with dictionaries including intentional errors and any book potentially containing typos I don't trust them absolutely. I'm quite comfortable using Wikipedia as a source, something I consider about as trustworthy as a newspaper or a college professor.

But I can't think of a single source that I would consider absolutely authoritative, can you?

--MarkusQ

A lot of movies get made and you wonder "WTF? How did this piece of drek ever scare up the capital?"

It's all the Germans' fault.

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

Unless you worked for Bill Clinton. Then if you go into the archives, stuff material (relevant to a congressional investigation, no less) you wrote into your pants legs to get it out of the building, and shred half of it, you get your wrist slapped for being a very naughty, naughty boy. But yes, in theory, they're strict SOBs :)

http://www.slate.com/id/2104138/

Germany closes tax loophole for Hollywood

Hollywood's Big Loss - No more free money from Germany

I find it odd that Slashdot reports on this only AFTER it's no longer true :)

That's why "these guys" need to go before a judge to get a warrant to obtain a wiretap

Section 218 aka "FISA: It's everywhere you don't want to be"

Section 218 amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a "bargain" struck in 1978 wherein the usual requirements for a police search--probable cause to believe a criminal act had occurred and a warrant--would be unnecessary in a teeny, tiny number of cases. That teeny, tiny number of cases just expanded dramatically.

What it does: Secret searches can now be authorized by a secret court without public knowledge or Department of Justice accountability, so long as the government can allege there is any foreign intelligence basis for the search.

{http://www.slate.com/id/2088106/}

Sure, it's still a 'judge', but it's commonly assumed they just 'rubber-stamp' the requests. Since it's a "secret court", we can't be sure, iof course.

Click here for more info.

can be found at Slate, in a "Hollywood Economist" column written by Edward Jay Epstein. The column is very good in general for untangling the frequently recondite and illogical ways in which Hollywood makes money.

http://www.slate.com/id/2117309/

--
Excerpt: The Hollywood studio starts by arranging on paper to sell the film's copyright to a German company. Then, they immediately lease the movie back--with an option to repurchase it later. At this point, a German company appears to own the movie. The Germans then sign a "production service agreement" and a "distribution service agreement" with the studio that limits their responsibility to token--and temporary--ownership.

For the privilege of fake ownership, the Germans pay the studio about 10 percent more than they'll eventually get back in lease and option payments. For the studio, that extra 10 percent is instant profit. It is truly, as one Paramount executive told me, "money for nothing."
--

So it's conceivable to me that German investors could come out ahead even if a film flops (even if the article at cinemabend does a very bad job illustrating how this happens).

Somebody above posted this link: http://www.slate.com/id/2117309/

Basically, to use your example, you spent that $1,000,000 of investor money (not your own). However, you collect investments of $100,000,000 to cover your rediculous budget, and you have a German company as your producer. Under German law, you get that tax deduction before the movie enters production, and then lease the film for your US studio for actual filming. So that's $99,000,000 you basically pocket on your $100m movie that really cost $1m.

Now, let's say your film goes to market and makes $125 million in revinues. By contract obligations, you pay back your investors their $100 million plus interest. Let's say 10% for another 10 million. Or, if you really screwed them, they signed for a percentage of the profits instead of that 10%, which means they get a set percentage out of $25m which could end up being even less. Heck, if you're lucky, the movie won't even make back the budget and your investors also get screwed even out of their full $100m.

All scenarios aside, let's say you agreed to 10% interset on the investment. That means $110m out of the $125m goes back to the investors, and your studio makes another $15m for a grand total of $114m profits on a movie that "cost" $100m and grossed $125m.

It's called cooking the books, it can get you in a lot of trouble, but a lot of companies get away with it for decades. However, if you have a good team of lawyers to handle your contracts and such, you can probably get away with this sort of thing without technically breaking the law.

This article explains it in better detail than I ever could:
http://www.slate.com/id/2117309/

Within the studios, this is common knowledge. It's the reason why Hollywood movies never turn a profit, as a rule. Every now and then you hear a story about how someone got screwed by agreeing to take less up front for a share of the profits. (Most recently, Peter Jackson is suing New Line for cooking the books on the LotR movies.)

Hollywood accounting is like Enron strung out on crystal meth. All the sliminess with twice the crazy.

BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out. ;-)

Yeah, how did that turn out? Oh, right, Germany was split into two countries, both occupied by foreign soldiers for decades. The world lived under the threat of nuclear war during that time because of the (at least perceived) possibility of a Soviet invasion of western Europe. Sure, West Germany did incredibly well economically, with a massive amount of aid from the U.S., plus having an established history of economic strength. And eventually the Wall fell and the reunited country is doing better now. But it's not exactly a great example of how to handle the rebuilding of a country.

Besides which, Iraq is not Germany.

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

--Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Toyota Sequoia 2.6 tons curb
Ford Expedition 2.8 tons curb
Nissan Armada 2.7 tons curb
Chevy Suburban 2.8 tons curb
Hummer 2 3.2 tons
Porche Cayenne 2.3 tons

There seems to be quite a few of the large SUVs that are nearly 3 tons. Close enough to be generalized.

And YES you should count GVWR because people (especially heavyweight Americans) and their dogs matter, like the airlines say. This makes most of the SUVs weight as much as heavy-lifting trucks and illegal on some residential streets.

Tin foil hats? No, no, no. Bush is controlled by a transmitter.

It would be nice if the UN would also regulate the use of traditional weaponary with regards to murdering people with them. Although I would rather be killed in battle than come home eating out a straw with a few parts missing.

At least, I think that's what you were referring to. Rwanda happens all over again, and the entire world turns a blind eye. Yet, the tools remain simple and same - blades. Let's just have the UN outlaw blades of any kind. Ah, but it's the UN who's turning the blind eye, while their 'workers' are raping Darfur's child refugees for fun. :(

So what if the US bends the rules a little bit? When are people going to realize and figure out that the world is a helluva lot nastier than the United States Military, while it may have it's whackjobs, most are sane, smart, and compassionate people who make the right decisions. And I'm sorry, if it takes a little bit of pressure and coercion, maybe even some torture for a while, to rid the world of these IslamiFacisiNazis that are slaughtering who races of people... GO FOR IT! Hell, give me some bamboo splinters and a water bucket, I'll join in the fun.

Genocide is the most animalistic exhibition of evil on the planet today... yet the world says nothing, does nothing, and continues to let millions of people die by the hands of Allah in the name of race purification. It makes me sick, it makes me vomit, and it makes me proud to be an American to know that despite all the bullshit and the protests and the fuckwads, WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT AND JUST THING.

Taken from http://www.slate.com/id/2062009/
An appropriate picture http://gokubi.com/images/unintelligible.jpg

According to scientists, teachers, and civil libertarians, the Taliban has invaded Ohio. Creationists have devised a theory called "Intelligent Design" (ID) and are trying to get Ohio's Board of Education to make sure it's taught alongside Darwinism. Unlike creationism, ID accepts that the Earth is billions of years old and that species evolve through natural selection. It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom. Liberals call ID a menace that will sneak religion into public schools. They're exactly wrong. ID is a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science. Creationism used to be assertive and powerful. Darwinism wasn't allowed in schools. As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives fought to preserve creationism alongside evolution. They lost the war on both fronts. Courts struck down the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it mixed church and state. Meanwhile, scientific evidence discredited the belief that the Earth was created in six days and was only 6,000 years old. Like the Taliban, creationists were washed up. Their only hope was to flee to the mountains, shave their beards, change their clothes, and come back as something else. Continue Article What they've come back as is the Intelligent Design movement. Gone are the falsifiable claims of a six-day creation and a 6,000-year-old Earth. Gone is the God of the Bible. In their place, ID enthusiasts speak of questions, mysteries, and possibilities. As to whether God, the Force, or ET created us, ID is agnostic. "We simply ask the question as to whether something can form naturally or if there must have been something more, a designer," Robert Lattimer, an ID proponent in Ohio, told the Columbus Dispatch. "Our main contention is that [evolution-focused curriculum] standards are purely naturalistic and leave no room for the possibility that part of nature can be designed." This soft-headed agnosticism matches the soft-headed arguments for including it in the curriculum. They're the same arguments leftists have made for ebonics. According to ID proponents, the committee in charge of Ohio's science curriculum is too "homogenous" and lacks "diversity." It marginalizes alternative "points of view" to which students should be "exposed." A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored." A conservative member of the state education board says Ohioans deserve a science curriculum "they can all be comfortable with." Behind these pleas for diversity is the kind of educational relativism conservatives normally despise. "Biological evolution, like creationism and design, cannot be proved to be either true or false," writes one ID enthusiast in Ohio. Since evolution is an "unproven theory," says another, "belief in it is just as much an act of faith as is belief in creationism or in the theory of intelligent design." The response of liberals, teachers, and scientists has been hysterical. They accuse the ID movement of peddling "intolerance," fronting for the Christian right, and trying "to force a narrow religious ideology into our schools." If Ohio lets ID into its curriculum, they prophesy, the state will become an "international laughingstock," triggering a corporate exodus, a decline in property values, and the collapse of Ohio's standard of living. They refuse to acknowledge a difference between ID and creationism. "This is just a new paint job on the same old Edsel," says an Ohio University physiologist. The analogy is inside out. Creationists haven't repainted their Edsel. They've taken out the engine and the transmission. Without distinctive, measurable claims such as the six-day creation, the 6,000-year-old Earth, and other literal interpretations of the Bible, creationism no longer material

A professional journalist knows that if he/she repeatedly publishes lies or inaccuracies, they'll be finding other ways of earning a paycheck (thus, providing food for their bellies and a bed to sleep in).

Judith Miller notwithstanding.

1. What tripe. Let's look at the Senate vote on the Patriot Act and what do we see? Every single Democratic Senator present except one (Feingold) voted for the Patriot Act. The vote was 98-1-1. Now who was it that brought us the Patriot Act again?

2. The reason that Democrats want to restrict political spending on the Internet is not because the Republicans have more soft money to spend on Internet ads than the Democrats. (McCain-Feingold places no restrictions on "hard money" contributions). As the vast Right-Wing conspiracy bastion Slate.com has reported, the Democrats raise more soft money than Republicans. The reason that Democrats want to quash paid political blogging is that the Republicans are undisputably much more effective at it than Democrats. Anyone care to look at the hit statistics for The Drudge Report, Powerline or Little Green Footballs vs. The Daily KOS or any other liberal blog?

Gilker_Kimmel
Star Wars is not the universe-spanning mythic adventure Lucas pretends. It is a hack-written space opera with cardboard characters play-acting through old-time Saturday morning serial cliff-hangers. It is not an art film of great depth.

chadosaurus
But is it reasonable to think that within his many explicit metaphors, the story concealed an overarching and intentional central metaphor about the good and evil inherent in plotting? Or is it perhaps more reasonable to conclude that Aidan Wasley came up with a silly ass theory and expanded that to article length, mainly because someone was willing to pay him to do so?

TheNewSnobbery
So let me get this straight -- anti-intellectuals fill the Fray to trash a fawning, academic analysis of the Star Wars series?

2005 is so schizophrenic it makes my head hurt.

petersattler
Dear First-Year Grad Student:

Your analysis of Star Wars is good, as far as it goes. At one time or another, we have all felt that rush of excitement as we try out rhetorical terms and academic jargon for the first time. And I can definitely feel that excitement in your essay. You grab your readers' attention by making sweepingly counterintuitive claims (Star Wars is postmodern art) and then cement the argument with the glue of those old lit-crit favorites, self-referentiality and self-reflexivity. It's a tried an true method -- musicals about musicals, genre fiction's obsession with its own rules, comic strip characters who talk about comics -- but it still packs a punch with some people. And it make popular culture seem canny and highfalutin. Nice try on that account.

Keifus
Oh for Christ's sake.

Which is more likely:

(A) Lucas cleverly and consciously infused a subtle interplay of textual analysis on serendipity in fiction into a series of films where starchy dry plot points are piled high like flapjacks on a lumberjack's plate, with an ice cream scoop of buttery special effects on top and smothered sloppily with a pitcherful of treacly, saccarine emotion.*

(B) It's a vestigial relic of the storytelling tradition he's borrowing so heavily from.**

I've gotta go with B, Alex.

5% of newspaper revenues? Presumably that only counts online newspapers that have corresponding print media. What about online news sources that are exclusively online such as Slate and Salon? Salon has been getting my money for years instead of my local Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Slate.com has a good writeup to this effect, drawing a parallel between Intelligent Design "Theory" and Monty Python's "Brontosaurus Theory" ("... This theory goes as follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle; and then thin again at the far end.")

http://www.slate.com/id/2128755

Actually most people's votes don't ever count. Everyone who voted for Kerry didn't count, they got nothing they wanted. Everyone who voted for Badnarik (like myself) or other 3rd party candidate, don't count. Everyone who voted for Bush in a Kerry state didn't count. In the end, although I vote because I feel it is my duty, it makes more sense http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/ to play the lottery, even in a perfectly divided election.

If you don't think the press has a love affair with Apple you are kidding yourself. Have a look at this article - http://www.slate.com/id/2127924/nav/tap1/

Slate's Jack Schafer recently echoed Dvorak's points (or vice versa)

Actually a fantastic article just was written about this.

check out:
http://www.slate.com/id/2127924/
and
if you want, read my rants about apple and the media
http://smick.net/index.php?n=Main.AppleRants

from Slate's article:

"The inordinate amount of attention paid to Apple's launches must be, in part, a function of the company's skill at throwing media events, stoking the rumor mills, and seducing the consuming masses. All this, plus the chatter-inducing creativity of Apple's ad campaigns, and its practice of putting its machines in pretty boxes make writing about Apple products more interesting than assessing the latest iterations of the ThinkPad or Microsoft Office."

All these comments about why Google would be interested in AOL and I have yet to see anyone pointing out the one I think most compelling:

Google's revenue today comes almost entirely from advertising -- and AOL accounts for 12% of the revenue Google earns from AdSense.

If AOL terminated its contract, Google would feel some pain and its stock price could take a significant hit. Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that TimeWarner and Microsoft, Google's main rival, are talking about forging an alliance between AOL and MSN. That can't come as welcome news in Mountain View, Calif.

If MSN bought AOL from Time Warner and terminated that contract, it would be a big blow to both the company's revenue stream and, presumably, its stock price. Thus Google (or, more specifically, all those Google execs and VCs with a mountain of paper wealth tied up in GOOG shares) has an interest in keeping AOL afloat as a separate entity from Big Redmond, as long as the cost of doing so is less than the money they make back in AdSense revenues from AOL.

As Edward J. Epstein explained more fully in Slate back in May:
http://www.slate.com/id/2118819

In 2003, box office receipts accounted for less than 20% of a movie's revenues. Home entertainment provides more than 80%. Since then, the shift from theater to home has only accelerated. Last year, Walmart alone accounted for more than a third of studio revenues in video and DVD.

Home sales account for an even greater percentage of profits for the studios, given the high costs of theater promotion.

In fact, most studios expect to *lose* money as long as a film is in the theaters. The purpose of theater release is to build recognition and audience awareness, NOT to make money - not any more.

So, using your number of $10 million for Serenity's opening weekend, the movie can expect to make around $55-$65 million, if not more (given the strong cult fan base for the series and a lot of initial hesitation, given precedent of lousy films based on TV series).

Epstein uses the example of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which made only $8.1 mil in its opening weekend in the theaters--but sold over 1.5 million DVDs during its first week in the stores.