IANAL but I'm a photographer. You are certainly allowed to take pictures of people on private property, permission or not. Typically you'd want to do this from public space, or someplace you have a right to be standing physically (such as the street) - in which case there's nothing your subject can do about it besides closing the curtains (or whatever).
In this case, I guess it hinges on what altitude air rights extend to. There's no legal problem taking photos of someone in private property with an airplane, but I suppose it's different if your airplane or helicopter is only a few feet off the ground and therefore essentially within the private property. But the details given suggest the helicopter was shot down over the road, which is public.
But even if they were in the property the charge is trespassing, not taking photos without permission, and they can't force you to delete the photos (or ruin the film). You can be forced to leave the private property, of course - and I suppose there is a tradition of farmers shooting shotguns off to scare away trespassers, but I'd like to think one wouldn't get away with actually shooting someone who was merely trespassing. Or, you know, simply watching you from the street.
I was able to do this several years ago, with standard VLC on linux; the options are in there somewhere but I remember it not being obvious how to get it to work, and a lot of trial and error was involved.
VLC never does this for me, but Media Player Classic does (on OS X). Every time I start it, a dialog pops up saying it's rebuilding the font cache. It can take 1-2 minutes, or more, and won't let you do anything else while you're waiting!
It's annoying enough that I stopped trying to use MPC, even though it plays some videos smoothly that VLC stutters on (a known VLC OS X issue - not sure if it's fixed in the latest version). Plus the MPC interface and everything kind of sucks too.
If VLC were doing that too, I'd be really, really annoyed. But I'd probably keep using it anyway because despite its faults, it's always been the best player for my purposes, on all OS's.
That's not what he's talking about. Those people who don't know how to behave are not going to Ingmar Bergman films or even English-language arthouse/indie films, so the experience is only ever positive if you find a place showing such films - because for people who really like movies, the theater experience (including the film experience, which can't practically be replicated at home) is a big part of the enjoyment.
There are still such places - theaters that show classic films, new foreign films, and indie and art films. The Dryden Theater at the George Eastman House in Rochester NY (where I went to university) is my favorite, though I don't live there anymore. Yeah you can get it all on DVD, but it's still worth going if you're into movies - and if you're not into movies, you're not watching those kinds of films anyway.
He wasn't confused, check his sentence structure and grammar. As I did in an earlier comment, he's comparing modern-day Chinese villages to what you see in Japanese samurai films because that's what most people are likely to be familiar with (Chinese period films that are well-known in the US tend not to show much village life, even kung-fu films, but many samurai films do).
Modern-day rural life in Asia is indistinguishable from the 1800's or earlier except that they have pickup trucks instead of horse carts (though those are still in use as well). Here's a photo I took from the porch of a house in rural northern Thailand as an illustration; rather than the shack-like houses looking odd in modern times the few modern things in the photo are the things that stand out as being odd.
I'm not sure there's a pressing need for people to be sharing their stories of travel to rural Asia, although I don't think most people quite understand what it's like and how the people there live. Think of National Geographic stories of rural Asia from the 70's and you've pretty much got it - it really hasn't changed since then, or since pre-industrial times really.
I traveled in rural Thailand, and stayed with a hill tribe family in their shack-like house. By anyone's standards, it was deplorable. It looked not unlike farm villages you might see in samurai films (other than them not being Japanese) - which are set in the 1800's. The only real difference is that they have motorbikes and a few pickup trucks (and how they're able to afford those, I'm really not sure).
These people are literally wallowing in the mud, like the peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The villages are covered in dried mud, and when it rains (which it does often) the whole place turns into a mud pit of unbelievable proportions.
The other modern thing they do have, though, is TV. On it they primarily see metropolitan Bangkok (or in China's case, they'd see Beijing and Shanghai) and almost exclusively upper-middle-class people in the TV shows. So rural people flock to the cities and will take any job that they can find, because even the worst job (and a factory job - especially a high-tech factory like at Foxconn - is miles above the worst jobs there are in Asian cities) is better than the shithole town they're from.
I agree with your comments, but I had to laugh when you mentioned Fry's salespeople being useful. I agree that their matching online prices is great, but the salespeople are the worst, in my experience. They don't know any more about the products than the people at Best Buy, but are even more scummy because they're on commission.
The worst time I made the mistake of interacting with them (to ask where something was) the guy showed me then hovered. He didn't know anything in particular about the products - I asked and he went into sales-speak without actually saying anything of value before I said I'll just look myself - he was just hovering there making me uncomfortable. When I decided on something (I needed it right away) he insisted that I go over to the computer with him, where he asked for my name and address and phone number (I refused) and then printed out a piece of paper to give to the cashier so that he'd get his commission. All this for a $15 commodity item.
I pocketed the piece of paper and threw it out when I walked out the store, instead of giving it to the cashier. Fuck that.
You're assuming that they're only talking about special TVs. As you say, this is not really feasible. However, Target sells a lot of things besides TVs. We're not talking about Best Buy, which I'm sure we'd all agree could never pull this off.
Target has been doing this for years with their clothing. Their standard stuff is not that great (if you care about fit and style - quality is ok for the price) but they often have well-known fashion designers or firms do lines exclusive to Target. They're hit-or-miss, and are only rarely for the men's department, but are very popular when they're good.
They want to expand this to other categories. I suspect they will try electronics, but are more likely to succeed in other areas like housewares, toys, etc.
Many stores (in the US) will match the in-store price to the internet price if you ask, even if you don't order online for in-store pickup. Not all, but many. Recently at a mall clothing store I bought something and told the cashier that their website had it for cheaper, and told her the online price (which was true). She rang up the lower price without looking it up to check or anything.
You can't necessarily expect this from electronics stores like Best Buy, but most stores will give you the online price if it's cheaper. It's a matter of getting the sale and trying to retain your loyalty - they know as well as you that if they don't give you the lower price you may just order it online, and probably from somewhere else that has it even cheaper, like Amazon.
Not that I don't agree it's overpriced, but stores like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus have essentially insane devotion to customer satisfaction. You can return things - things like multi-thousand-dollar dresses or suits, $500 shoes, or whatever - even if you've used them to the point that they're unsellable and while they will ask you why, their accepting it is not dependent on you having a good reason. "I changed my mind" is as good a reason as any, to them.
If you bring in something for return they will go way out of their way to make sure you're satisfied. I'm an unemployed, slightly overweight, nerdy looking guy (though I try to dress nicely) and at Nordstrom they treat me just as well as the guy wearing the $3000 suit even though I mostly only shop in the clearance section there (and even then can't afford most of it) when I've gone in to return things - including shoes that I'd already worn and which they took back no-questions-asked.
REI, the camping/etc. store, does the same thing. They'll take back anything you bought there, even if you beat it to hell on the trail, if it didn't satisfy you.
This is sustainable because, yeah, they charge more (in general) than elsewhere, but the people who shop in these stores appreciate this service and pay more for it (and don't generally abuse it). In these examples (Nordstrom and REI) they sell products that you want to be able to handle and try a bit before buying, which you can't do online, so that helps too. But, mainly, treating their customers well means these stores do well. Why this is hard for most stores to understand is beyond me. Actually, Wal-Mart's return policy is essentially the same, so it's not just over-charging for things that allows stores to do this (if it were, then Best Buy should be able to do the same, but they don't).
This opposed to the process of returning things to most online stores, which is almost always a big hassle and is clearly designed to discourage you from actually doing it. The online retailers who get the most loyalty and create the most positive feelings in their customers are the ones who emulate the Nordstrom model - free shipping for returns, and not too odious restrictions on the condition of the item.
I prefer buying online for the cheapest prices myself, but for things I'm not sure about I do feel hesitant to the point of just not purchasing if I won't be able to easily return it. I like Fry's price matching for this reason, too - because you can theoretically easily return it - although I've not ever tried to return something to Fry's and I hear it can be frustrating. But I'm not sure how sustainable that model will be. And the service there sucks - you have to avoid the salespeople like the plague when you go in there:)
Re:Must be a sad day for these guys
on
CEOs of RIM Step Down
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Surely there's some truth to that, but... as CEOs they've made their millions, and they probably will receive millions more as a severance package. Hard to feel that sad for them.
Where do you get your meat, cheese, and bread so cheap?
To make a burger I'd expect to pay $2-3 in raw ingredients - personally I'd probably pay a couple dollars more to buy a good quality fresh roll and good cheese.
It's an interesting dilemma for poor people - McDonalds etc. is actually cheaper than making a burger yourself (even considering opportunity costs, for some people anyway), assuming you don't spend too much on profit centers like drinks and whatever else they overcharge for (I don't eat McDonald's). But I'm sure even the least-educated people realize it isn't healthy to eat that stuff every day, even if it's the most affordable option for them.
To get back to the point - "you get what you pay for" is often incorrect, but if you're a savvy shopper it's easily true most of the time. You have to be able to tell when something is massively marked up just for the sake of profit. If you eliminate such items, then for many (not all) things there really is a marked difference in the quality of your various options, correlating at least roughly with their price.
I'm not exactly sure of the reason, but theaters are contractually required to run the films for every scheduled showing even if there's nobody in the theater!
I think what he's referring to, by the way, is choosing your seats when you buy the ticket - not the live event model.
Take a look in the Apple App Store and the Android Market. There are loads of people doing exactly as you describe. Many (most?) seem to be coming from China - which leads me to suspect it isn't worth anyone's while in places with a higher cost of living.
Should I pay for water if there is a man handing out free water a block down? I doubt you would. This article says we should arrest the man down the street in order to protect the water industry; that there is something inherently wrong with getting water for free; that we should always expect to pay for something.
Of course, would you actually accept this mystery water from some guy on the street? Perhaps he should be arrested - after sending a sample for analysis of course. In this case I would expect to have to pay something (perhaps not directly if I'm using a public water fountain or something) for drinkable water, as drinkable water is not free to obtain and distribute.;)
If the coffee shops were like the itunes app store, you'd pay $1 and most times you'd get a typical coffee but sometimes you'd get only half filled cup, and sometimes it would have a dead mouse floating in it, and sometimes it would turn out to be orange soda instead, but you'd have no real recourse and all you can do is hope it turns out better tomorrow, next time you shop at the world's ONE coffee shop.
I don't understand this, can you please reframe it in terms of a car analogy?
But, considering that the police often don't really do anything if you report a theft (except file the information away in case stolen goods are recovered, if you're lucky), it's not likely that they go around looking for multimeters that say "property of..." on the back of them.
And anyway, if you want to avoid getting dirty looks when using your stolen laptop with "property of..." melted into the top, just put a piece of tape over it or something. If someone comes specifically looking for it you're screwed, but if you obtained it legitimately there's no problem.
So what do you think "the 10" should be called (I live in CA)? Do you say "Interstate Highway 10" in normal speech (or just "Highway 10", which also sounds unnaturally formal to me, but is not unreasonable)? Or, do you say "the 10 limited access highway"?
I'm originally from Western New York (Buffalo, went to university in Rochester). We have highways there equivalent to CA's freeways (though much smaller), but no one calls them freeways, they call them highways. But then, there are regular surface roads that are also called highways. I never knew how to refer to the freeways there (still don't, though people know what I mean if I'm back in Buffalo and use the CA term freeway). But, people in Buffalo and Rochester refer to the freeways by their numbers - "the 290", "the 90" (which is the interstate thruway but used as a local freeway in the cities it passes through), etc. just as they do here in CA. I've heard freeways referred to in this way many other places as well.
So I'm genuinely interested in what you think people should be saying (and I don't see the redundancy in this method unless you exaggerate what people are saying and add to it, which is what you've done).
I watched it recently on blu-ray on a decent-sized HDTV (48" or so)... and even from across the room we could tell that the background in the ape scenes was a painting.
They showed a 70mm print of it at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood a few years back - I stupidly didn't go (but I did go to the actual Cinerama 3-projector film How The West Was Won, which they played the same month).
I think you're missing the point of G+ a bit... you can't think of adding people like Obama or the Dalai Lama as "friends" - it's more like following them on Twitter. Exactly like that, actually. It's not like they're going to add you back and look at everything you post.
So... G+ is more like Twitter than Facebook, but it encourages more in-depth conversation.
Personally, though I keep it open in a tab (I keep a lot of tabs open) I generally forget to look at it. For a while, I was using it pretty regularly with a small group of friends, but we all just kind of stopped posting stuff on it (though I do still think it's better for small group discussions than facebook - but we don't post on facebook either). I go through my extensive Twitter feed several times a day, though. I wait for the in-depth conversations about stories that are interesting to me to occur either here on slashdot or on boingboing.
In Thailand, at larger intersections there are big number displays that count down in seconds for each signal change. I found it quite nice when driving there (which otherwise is a very stressful experience).
Perhaps a haircut and an education might help you attain wealth quicker than living in a cardboard box on someone else's property.
I dress well, keep my hair cut and my face shaved, I have BS and MS science degrees from good schools. I haven't been able to find a job since finishing grad school - almost two years ago.
There is reason to protest, and the fact that you don't understand what they're protesting is as telling as your non-solution of getting a haircut and an education.
Though I fully support their ideals I wasn't enthralled with most of the crowd in Zuccotti Park when I went to check it out, and I wouldn't join such an occupation myself, but you're attacking the messenger and not the message - because there is very little that is attackable (barring fringe elements).
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL but I'm a photographer. You are certainly allowed to take pictures of people on private property, permission or not. Typically you'd want to do this from public space, or someplace you have a right to be standing physically (such as the street) - in which case there's nothing your subject can do about it besides closing the curtains (or whatever).
In this case, I guess it hinges on what altitude air rights extend to. There's no legal problem taking photos of someone in private property with an airplane, but I suppose it's different if your airplane or helicopter is only a few feet off the ground and therefore essentially within the private property. But the details given suggest the helicopter was shot down over the road, which is public.
But even if they were in the property the charge is trespassing, not taking photos without permission, and they can't force you to delete the photos (or ruin the film). You can be forced to leave the private property, of course - and I suppose there is a tradition of farmers shooting shotguns off to scare away trespassers, but I'd like to think one wouldn't get away with actually shooting someone who was merely trespassing. Or, you know, simply watching you from the street.
I was able to do this several years ago, with standard VLC on linux; the options are in there somewhere but I remember it not being obvious how to get it to work, and a lot of trial and error was involved.
VLC never does this for me, but Media Player Classic does (on OS X). Every time I start it, a dialog pops up saying it's rebuilding the font cache. It can take 1-2 minutes, or more, and won't let you do anything else while you're waiting!
It's annoying enough that I stopped trying to use MPC, even though it plays some videos smoothly that VLC stutters on (a known VLC OS X issue - not sure if it's fixed in the latest version). Plus the MPC interface and everything kind of sucks too.
If VLC were doing that too, I'd be really, really annoyed. But I'd probably keep using it anyway because despite its faults, it's always been the best player for my purposes, on all OS's.
Or, the original site spotted and fixed the mistake after the submitter copied and pasted it.
That's not what he's talking about. Those people who don't know how to behave are not going to Ingmar Bergman films or even English-language arthouse/indie films, so the experience is only ever positive if you find a place showing such films - because for people who really like movies, the theater experience (including the film experience, which can't practically be replicated at home) is a big part of the enjoyment.
There are still such places - theaters that show classic films, new foreign films, and indie and art films. The Dryden Theater at the George Eastman House in Rochester NY (where I went to university) is my favorite, though I don't live there anymore. Yeah you can get it all on DVD, but it's still worth going if you're into movies - and if you're not into movies, you're not watching those kinds of films anyway.
He wasn't confused, check his sentence structure and grammar. As I did in an earlier comment, he's comparing modern-day Chinese villages to what you see in Japanese samurai films because that's what most people are likely to be familiar with (Chinese period films that are well-known in the US tend not to show much village life, even kung-fu films, but many samurai films do).
Modern-day rural life in Asia is indistinguishable from the 1800's or earlier except that they have pickup trucks instead of horse carts (though those are still in use as well). Here's a photo I took from the porch of a house in rural northern Thailand as an illustration; rather than the shack-like houses looking odd in modern times the few modern things in the photo are the things that stand out as being odd.
I'm not sure there's a pressing need for people to be sharing their stories of travel to rural Asia, although I don't think most people quite understand what it's like and how the people there live. Think of National Geographic stories of rural Asia from the 70's and you've pretty much got it - it really hasn't changed since then, or since pre-industrial times really.
I traveled in rural Thailand, and stayed with a hill tribe family in their shack-like house. By anyone's standards, it was deplorable. It looked not unlike farm villages you might see in samurai films (other than them not being Japanese) - which are set in the 1800's. The only real difference is that they have motorbikes and a few pickup trucks (and how they're able to afford those, I'm really not sure).
These people are literally wallowing in the mud, like the peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The villages are covered in dried mud, and when it rains (which it does often) the whole place turns into a mud pit of unbelievable proportions.
The other modern thing they do have, though, is TV. On it they primarily see metropolitan Bangkok (or in China's case, they'd see Beijing and Shanghai) and almost exclusively upper-middle-class people in the TV shows. So rural people flock to the cities and will take any job that they can find, because even the worst job (and a factory job - especially a high-tech factory like at Foxconn - is miles above the worst jobs there are in Asian cities) is better than the shithole town they're from.
(anyone here know off-hand where the other 4 older trees are?)
This is Slashdot, so I don't expect anyone here to know this, but TFA helpfully provides information about the other oldest trees :)
I agree with your comments, but I had to laugh when you mentioned Fry's salespeople being useful. I agree that their matching online prices is great, but the salespeople are the worst, in my experience. They don't know any more about the products than the people at Best Buy, but are even more scummy because they're on commission.
The worst time I made the mistake of interacting with them (to ask where something was) the guy showed me then hovered. He didn't know anything in particular about the products - I asked and he went into sales-speak without actually saying anything of value before I said I'll just look myself - he was just hovering there making me uncomfortable. When I decided on something (I needed it right away) he insisted that I go over to the computer with him, where he asked for my name and address and phone number (I refused) and then printed out a piece of paper to give to the cashier so that he'd get his commission. All this for a $15 commodity item.
I pocketed the piece of paper and threw it out when I walked out the store, instead of giving it to the cashier. Fuck that.
You're assuming that they're only talking about special TVs. As you say, this is not really feasible. However, Target sells a lot of things besides TVs. We're not talking about Best Buy, which I'm sure we'd all agree could never pull this off.
Target has been doing this for years with their clothing. Their standard stuff is not that great (if you care about fit and style - quality is ok for the price) but they often have well-known fashion designers or firms do lines exclusive to Target. They're hit-or-miss, and are only rarely for the men's department, but are very popular when they're good.
They want to expand this to other categories. I suspect they will try electronics, but are more likely to succeed in other areas like housewares, toys, etc.
Many stores (in the US) will match the in-store price to the internet price if you ask, even if you don't order online for in-store pickup. Not all, but many. Recently at a mall clothing store I bought something and told the cashier that their website had it for cheaper, and told her the online price (which was true). She rang up the lower price without looking it up to check or anything.
You can't necessarily expect this from electronics stores like Best Buy, but most stores will give you the online price if it's cheaper. It's a matter of getting the sale and trying to retain your loyalty - they know as well as you that if they don't give you the lower price you may just order it online, and probably from somewhere else that has it even cheaper, like Amazon.
Not that I don't agree it's overpriced, but stores like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus have essentially insane devotion to customer satisfaction. You can return things - things like multi-thousand-dollar dresses or suits, $500 shoes, or whatever - even if you've used them to the point that they're unsellable and while they will ask you why, their accepting it is not dependent on you having a good reason. "I changed my mind" is as good a reason as any, to them.
If you bring in something for return they will go way out of their way to make sure you're satisfied. I'm an unemployed, slightly overweight, nerdy looking guy (though I try to dress nicely) and at Nordstrom they treat me just as well as the guy wearing the $3000 suit even though I mostly only shop in the clearance section there (and even then can't afford most of it) when I've gone in to return things - including shoes that I'd already worn and which they took back no-questions-asked.
REI, the camping/etc. store, does the same thing. They'll take back anything you bought there, even if you beat it to hell on the trail, if it didn't satisfy you.
This is sustainable because, yeah, they charge more (in general) than elsewhere, but the people who shop in these stores appreciate this service and pay more for it (and don't generally abuse it). In these examples (Nordstrom and REI) they sell products that you want to be able to handle and try a bit before buying, which you can't do online, so that helps too. But, mainly, treating their customers well means these stores do well. Why this is hard for most stores to understand is beyond me. Actually, Wal-Mart's return policy is essentially the same, so it's not just over-charging for things that allows stores to do this (if it were, then Best Buy should be able to do the same, but they don't).
This opposed to the process of returning things to most online stores, which is almost always a big hassle and is clearly designed to discourage you from actually doing it. The online retailers who get the most loyalty and create the most positive feelings in their customers are the ones who emulate the Nordstrom model - free shipping for returns, and not too odious restrictions on the condition of the item.
I prefer buying online for the cheapest prices myself, but for things I'm not sure about I do feel hesitant to the point of just not purchasing if I won't be able to easily return it. I like Fry's price matching for this reason, too - because you can theoretically easily return it - although I've not ever tried to return something to Fry's and I hear it can be frustrating. But I'm not sure how sustainable that model will be. And the service there sucks - you have to avoid the salespeople like the plague when you go in there :)
Surely there's some truth to that, but... as CEOs they've made their millions, and they probably will receive millions more as a severance package. Hard to feel that sad for them.
Where do you get your meat, cheese, and bread so cheap?
To make a burger I'd expect to pay $2-3 in raw ingredients - personally I'd probably pay a couple dollars more to buy a good quality fresh roll and good cheese.
It's an interesting dilemma for poor people - McDonalds etc. is actually cheaper than making a burger yourself (even considering opportunity costs, for some people anyway), assuming you don't spend too much on profit centers like drinks and whatever else they overcharge for (I don't eat McDonald's). But I'm sure even the least-educated people realize it isn't healthy to eat that stuff every day, even if it's the most affordable option for them.
To get back to the point - "you get what you pay for" is often incorrect, but if you're a savvy shopper it's easily true most of the time. You have to be able to tell when something is massively marked up just for the sake of profit. If you eliminate such items, then for many (not all) things there really is a marked difference in the quality of your various options, correlating at least roughly with their price.
Both Canon and Nikon made cameras 50-70 years ago. Whether or not they were widely available in the US is of course a different matter.
I'm not exactly sure of the reason, but theaters are contractually required to run the films for every scheduled showing even if there's nobody in the theater!
I think what he's referring to, by the way, is choosing your seats when you buy the ticket - not the live event model.
Take a look in the Apple App Store and the Android Market. There are loads of people doing exactly as you describe. Many (most?) seem to be coming from China - which leads me to suspect it isn't worth anyone's while in places with a higher cost of living.
Should I pay for water if there is a man handing out free water a block down? I doubt you would. This article says we should arrest the man down the street in order to protect the water industry; that there is something inherently wrong with getting water for free; that we should always expect to pay for something.
Of course, would you actually accept this mystery water from some guy on the street? Perhaps he should be arrested - after sending a sample for analysis of course. In this case I would expect to have to pay something (perhaps not directly if I'm using a public water fountain or something) for drinkable water, as drinkable water is not free to obtain and distribute. ;)
If the coffee shops were like the itunes app store, you'd pay $1 and most times you'd get a typical coffee but sometimes you'd get only half filled cup, and sometimes it would have a dead mouse floating in it, and sometimes it would turn out to be orange soda instead, but you'd have no real recourse and all you can do is hope it turns out better tomorrow, next time you shop at the world's ONE coffee shop.
I don't understand this, can you please reframe it in terms of a car analogy?
But, considering that the police often don't really do anything if you report a theft (except file the information away in case stolen goods are recovered, if you're lucky), it's not likely that they go around looking for multimeters that say "property of..." on the back of them.
And anyway, if you want to avoid getting dirty looks when using your stolen laptop with "property of..." melted into the top, just put a piece of tape over it or something. If someone comes specifically looking for it you're screwed, but if you obtained it legitimately there's no problem.
So what do you think "the 10" should be called (I live in CA)? Do you say "Interstate Highway 10" in normal speech (or just "Highway 10", which also sounds unnaturally formal to me, but is not unreasonable)? Or, do you say "the 10 limited access highway"?
I'm originally from Western New York (Buffalo, went to university in Rochester). We have highways there equivalent to CA's freeways (though much smaller), but no one calls them freeways, they call them highways. But then, there are regular surface roads that are also called highways. I never knew how to refer to the freeways there (still don't, though people know what I mean if I'm back in Buffalo and use the CA term freeway). But, people in Buffalo and Rochester refer to the freeways by their numbers - "the 290", "the 90" (which is the interstate thruway but used as a local freeway in the cities it passes through), etc. just as they do here in CA. I've heard freeways referred to in this way many other places as well.
So I'm genuinely interested in what you think people should be saying (and I don't see the redundancy in this method unless you exaggerate what people are saying and add to it, which is what you've done).
I watched it recently on blu-ray on a decent-sized HDTV (48" or so)... and even from across the room we could tell that the background in the ape scenes was a painting.
They showed a 70mm print of it at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood a few years back - I stupidly didn't go (but I did go to the actual Cinerama 3-projector film How The West Was Won, which they played the same month).
I think you're missing the point of G+ a bit... you can't think of adding people like Obama or the Dalai Lama as "friends" - it's more like following them on Twitter. Exactly like that, actually. It's not like they're going to add you back and look at everything you post.
So... G+ is more like Twitter than Facebook, but it encourages more in-depth conversation.
Personally, though I keep it open in a tab (I keep a lot of tabs open) I generally forget to look at it. For a while, I was using it pretty regularly with a small group of friends, but we all just kind of stopped posting stuff on it (though I do still think it's better for small group discussions than facebook - but we don't post on facebook either). I go through my extensive Twitter feed several times a day, though. I wait for the in-depth conversations about stories that are interesting to me to occur either here on slashdot or on boingboing.
In Thailand, at larger intersections there are big number displays that count down in seconds for each signal change. I found it quite nice when driving there (which otherwise is a very stressful experience).
You suggest:
Perhaps a haircut and an education might help you attain wealth quicker than living in a cardboard box on someone else's property.
I dress well, keep my hair cut and my face shaved, I have BS and MS science degrees from good schools. I haven't been able to find a job since finishing grad school - almost two years ago.
There is reason to protest, and the fact that you don't understand what they're protesting is as telling as your non-solution of getting a haircut and an education.
Though I fully support their ideals I wasn't enthralled with most of the crowd in Zuccotti Park when I went to check it out, and I wouldn't join such an occupation myself, but you're attacking the messenger and not the message - because there is very little that is attackable (barring fringe elements).